Card Games That Are As Solid As Armour

Well, personally I'm not that great on games where everybody has all information, and neither I am on 2 persons games. I like the more complex interaction between more than two players. But that's just personal taste, it doesn't mean your game is bad.

The points system is complex enough that I don't see immediately how this has to be played successfully, but the danger here is that someone with reasonable analytic ability could figure out pretty quickly what to do in every situation, and then there are no interesting decisions left. This may or may not be so, personally I'd need to play a few rounds to see how it plays out, but I won't, because as I said before it's not the general kind of game that excites me.

Players have quite a bit to do jotting down points, relative to the actual gameplay.

Being an expert at poker will not help you to be a good Bridge player. Neither will being an expert at Rummy. But being a good player of any of the Whist family of games will help with at least the basics of playing Bridge. But even this will not take you much beyond the beginner level.

 

I have learned bridge long ago but unfortunately only very rarely had opportunity to play it, so I haven't reached any stage beyond total beginner. (Obviously playing lots of card games makes me a better bridge beginner than most beginners, but still just a beginner.) Reading on "duplicate bridge", this apparently needs a tournament or properly sizeable group, and I don't see myself having that in the near future. Also I wouldn't agree that "card luck is totally excluded" because you're still also scored against people who have different hands, aren't you? The fact that all scores are relative means that there is some standardisation and improved comparability, but still conditions are not the same for everyone, if I understand it correctly. Surely you depend on the way of playing of the opponents on your table compared to other opponents on other tables, although you may not want to call that "card luck". There's probabilities involved, so there's some randomness, no way out of that. Which for me by the way isn't a problem, if anything it's something good. I don't adhere to the philosophy that the best one always should win and shouldn't ever be stopped by fate from winning. Obviously I don't like games in which it doesn't matter much what you do because they're dominated by randomness; there should be a reward for skill at least in percentages, however I think it's more fun to play with players of varying skills (which I usually do as I play with general game lovers, not normally with specialists for any particular game) if a game comes with a fair amount of winning variance.   

there is only one card game in which card luck is totally excluded, and that's this one:

there really is no card luck whatever; it is all skills. Friede and I both love this game and are very good at it. it should be a game after your heart, Lewian, because an important part of the game is the bidding by which the players try to tell their partners what cards they hold. there are also certain signals during the actual card play by which the partner can be told what cards you have.

bridge is as complicated a game as chess, and indeed many chess players also play bridge