My Broken Arrow bridge jumbo review (1 Viewer)

upNdown

Royal Flush
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
22,004
Reaction score
37,632
Location
boston
IMG_0240.jpeg

IMG_0241.png

IMG_0242.png


I got these in play on Friday. At $7.50 per setup (which includes a nice cardboard box and two cut cards) they’re a steal. At their regular price of $10, they’re a setup everybody should consider.
I think these feel most similar to Fourniers - nice but subtle texture and slightly on the stiffer side. I believe the backs have slightly more texture than the faces but you’d only notice with close inspection. They have a nice satisfying buttery feel when shuffling, and they pitch and gather great. Zero complaints about their physical properties. Minimal top card float. Everybody thought they felt and looked great.

Personal preference time - I didn’t like the numbers and pips at all, and neither did my players. Maybe they’re a touch smaller than jumbo (and most of us have older eyes.) But we lasted about an orbit with these, and then switched them out for a more traditional looking jumbo.

Bottom line - great cards for a great price, but if you’re particular about your pips you might want to give them a play before ordering a stack.
 
My players didn't like the somewhat similarity of the club and spade, and got confused a lot, especially from across the table. We haven't used them since.
Same and also mixups between some of the numbers 5, 6, 8, 9 all look similar.

I believe Justin has made revisions to try to address both issues with the next iteration of these cards.
 
Same and also mixups between some of the numbers 5, 6, 8, 9 all look similar.

I believe Justin has made revisions to try to address both issues with the next iteration of these cards.
I was curious about that, so I checked out the poker size group buy thread, and the way I read the description was that they’d be the same. Maybe I misread?
 
I was curious about that, so I checked out the poker size group buy thread, and the way I read the description was that they’d be the same. Maybe I misread?
They definitely modified the clubs.

Revised Bridge:

1715715910270.png


Poker:

1715715945002.png


On the 5 card, they got rid of the downstroke in the upper-right corner that was in the original here:

1715716109317.png


I think there were some other subtle changes (the spade looks more elongated now).
 
I have the newer replacments and same comments as as all above, used once and switched out. They have great potential but need a little work.
 
My players didn't like the somewhat similarity of the club and spade, and got confused a lot, especially from across the table. We haven't used them since.
Could you post an example when you get a sec? I can see my crew getting a little confused due to "low light" (3-4 whiskey drinks)
 
They definitely modified the clubs.

Revised Bridge:

View attachment 1328740

Poker:

View attachment 1328741

On the 5 card, they got rid of the downstroke in the upper-right corner that was in the original here:

View attachment 1328742

I think there were some other subtle changes (the spade looks more elongated now).
I thought they were modified from version one (with the error 4) bridge to version 2 bridge (which is what I have.)
Are you saying they were further modified from version 2 bridge to poker size?
 
Yes, the next version, which is the poker size ones have been further modified per the proofs in the poker size interest/sale thread.
Good. Maybe I’ll give those a chance if/when they’re offered to the public.
 
@mike32 is correct.....they only lasted 1 orbit or so and where changed out.....the same thing happened with a second group I play with.....

I personally love them, but it they aren't accept by either of my groups, they don't do me much good....dang.....
 
Just wanted to say I appreciate the very useful insights from everyone here. I'd had my eye on these but all of the critiques (pro and con) are helpful in making a decision.

I will say there seems to be the classic case here, that I see all the time in chip design, of making something that looks good, really good, but maybe is not as functional as one would hope.
 
From across an oval table I’m wondering why there are four 8 of each suit in this deck.

Really the 5 & 6 are way too similar and so are the 8 & 9. Very easy to mix them up. As well as the club and spade having a very close shape. They need more definition to distinguish them apart.
 
The fonts of the number need work in my opinion. The cards themselves felt and handled fantastic.
100% - We played for 5 hours, found the same issue
Really the 5 & 6 are way too similar and so are the 8 & 9. Very easy to mix them up. As well as the club and spade having a very close shape. They need more definition to distinguish them apart.
I think 4, 5, 6, and 8 would take some double takes.
 
I personally don’t see an issue with the suits or numbers. But to help others for visual reference. Here are a few pictures.

Bridge Jumbo Index
View attachment 1329014View attachment 1329015
Put these on an oval table and take a picture from the far end of the table, at an angle, like a player would be viewing them and then tell me there isn't anything wrong with the font.
 
Put these on an oval table and take a picture from the far end of the table, at an angle, like a player would be viewing them and then tell me there isn't anything wrong with the font.
If the numbers look the same from that far wouldn’t you resort to counting the pips?

At the very least I think the club leafs can be pinched inward and even then by just a little. Once those are adjusted you would be able to make out the cards from that far.

Maybe a 4 color deck could be in the line up soon???
 
Haha. I actually had to put on my glasses on to read one board. Thinking that was probably a tell, on the next hand I put my on glasses as a reverse tell and then I bet. I don’t remember if it worked.

I can come up with a long wish list for card characteristics, but in order of priority, #1 is plastic and #2 is easily readable numbers and pips. And really, those are the only two necessaries on the list - everything else is gravy.
I hope the counting thing was a joke.
 
I personally don’t see an issue with the suits or numbers. But to help others for visual reference. Here are a few pictures.

Bridge Jumbo Index
View attachment 1329014View attachment 1329015

Typography-wise, I could see how the boxiness of the numerals might make them harder to read than curvier fonts.

The 6 and 9 are effectively all the same form as the 8, except with narrow cutouts on one side.

This isn’t always true when those three numerals are drawn more independently.

Some 6s and 9s are closed loops; some leave the “counter” open. With some, the arm forms a right angle, on others its more like a quarter of an ellipse, or even a straight diagonal.

Even some 8s are drawn very differently than others. Most are some version of a sideways infinity symbol; but sometimes the loop is offset (see the first example below).

Anyway, I can see how this particular choice of font might be less than optimal.

IMG_3830.jpeg
IMG_3829.jpeg
IMG_3828.jpeg
IMG_3827.jpeg
IMG_3826.jpeg
IMG_3824.jpeg
IMG_3823.jpeg
IMG_3822.jpeg
IMG_3821.jpeg
IMG_3820.jpeg
IMG_3819.jpeg
IMG_3818.jpeg
IMG_3817.jpeg


Note: If I were designing a deck of cards, I would want the six and 9 strongly differentiated, since they are often just 180-degree rotations of each other.

Another pair which can cause (rare) issues is the A and the 4. When the 4 has a triangular top, it can start to resemble an A. I’d prefer 4s with an open top.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom