It just shows that bridge can not really be played cut-throat competitively with humans face-to-face. (Social play is fine and fun.)

Adding intermediation (either other humans or computers) removes most of the problems.

>Adding intermediation (either other humans or computers) removes most of the problems.

Perhaps, but that just reinforces the notion that the game is fundamentally broken. If a card game works better on computers, then it's not really much of a card game, is it?

Solitaire works much better on computer than when played with cards, especially if you win the game and get the bouncy cards animation.

There are a lot of games and sports where computer mediation made, for example, what had been flawed human judgement more objective, or that made tedious housekeeping/accounting processes less burdensome, etc. And generally those sports and games are improved thereby. It is also the case that that computer mediation doesn't have to be applied to every level of play. It's not hard to imagine professional bridge being played so that teammates are isolated and "noise" like variable delay is inserted where hidden channels of communication could be used.

Why? I said cutthroat competitive play works better via computer. Competitive fair play, or even more so casual play, works just fine face to face.

counting cards is legal in Atlantic City, but if they suspect you of it they'll shuffle every hand or not let you change the size of your bet.

I may be picking a nit, but counting cards is legal in all casinos in the US. You are not breaking a law by counting cards, but the the casino has the right to stop providing you its service if you are, or if they even think you are (right up there with "No shirt, no shoes, no service").

Perhaps you mean that casinos in Atlantic City actually will not kick you out if they suspect you're counting cards, or they're bound by some law to allow you to keep playing?

If counting cards were actually illegal, we'd be a lot further along on our way to Orwell's 1984. You can't outlaw thought (yet).

Yes, you are correct. What I meant is that the casinos are forbidden from asking you to stop playing or to leave the casino based on counting cards. It's really in the casino's best interest though, because there are more people who think they can count cards than there are people who can do it effectively.

>counting cards is legal in Atlantic City, but if they suspect you of it they'll shuffle every hand or not let you change the size of your bet.

The fact that there's something to "suspect you of" is the whole problem. Doing the same (counting cards) in poker is explicitly encouraged, and the ability to know what cards remain in the deck is highly prized.

Blackjack is just not a very well-designed game.

Counting cards in poker? Say what? The deck is shuffled between every hand.

Unless you're referring to the basic skill of determining odds to make a certain hand based on your hole cards and the common cards?

That's true for hold'em, but in stud variants you need to keep track of the cards held or folded by other players.

But that's a very different skill from counting cards.

It's the same idea: predict future draws based on used cards.

In one you have you remember the attributes of the cards in the other you just have to maintain a running total. They are very different skills.

If you don't want people counting cards, shuffle between plays. It is in no way a problem any game is faced with.

The weird thing about card counting is that casinos want the people who are bad at counting cards. So it is not a flaw in the game, but just a weird rule that in the casino world you are not allowed to win.