Bridge dying?

[Free]

The idea of Bill Gates inserting Bridge into windows would indeed be a great idea, but NOBODY will understand it! It's not playing Hearts or Freecell, it's BIDDING, showing shape, strength,... Imo, it's extremely difficult to learn that by just playing or kibitzing the game. My grandfather played bridge a lot, and my father watched him sometimes, but he still couldn't play bridge. He didn't understand the bidding (it's like kibitzing a completely artificial system, you won't understand unless the alerts are explained).

 

It's always the same: if some people put energy into a cause, it will have results. So it's great that you try to put energy in young bridge players in your country, it's great that some people try this here in my country, and hopefully there are such people everywhere, but we still need more such people to make the game atractive for young people!

 

A while ago, on teletext, there was also an entertainment page where we had chess, bridge, GO and checkers. That was great, every week 3 declarer problems, but they replaced the page with something else (I don't know the reason anymore). That's really a shame, but luckily we still have some articles in certain magazines about big tourneys (bermuda bowl and others) where top players really show they can play cards. Also through these media we should promote the game. Let a TV chanel broadcast bridge tournaments, people will watch (just like chess games - also long time ago I saw one on television)...

[the saint]

I agree that Bridge is a whole different kettle of fish compared to Freecell and Hearts - thats why we play it and love it so much. And never get bored of it. My point was really that Bridge needs more exposure, and via the PC would be ideal. Although it was a little tongue in cheek I admit! The idea is that if you can arouse curiosity in the game, then some will give it a go. Where is the mass-exposure at the moment? We have just had the most exciting Bermuda Bowl ever and where exactly did the world sit up and take notice?

[the hog]

Fred,

It is no secret that Wolff actively campaigned against allowing liberalisation of systems and conventions. Have you read some of his comments and decisions in Appeals committees of which he was a member? "Appeals Committee

Decisions From The 1994 NEC World Championships in

Albuquerque" (Devyn Press, 1995), is worth a read.

 

Re Meckstroth and his motives, you may know him well, however I stand by my claim. His behaviour directed at a visiting Australian team last year when he was playing with and attempting to protect his client was disgraceful to say the least. I would point any interested parties to the following link to allow them to judge for themselves:

http://www.nswba.com.au/news/JDR_4B.htm

 

I also refer you to comments that Richard Willey, (Hrothgar), has made regarding his dealings with him, and the intransigence shown.

 

Having read some of your posts on this topic in the past I am aware of your views and was half expecting a comment from you. Needless to say, I disagree with you strongly on this issue:

 

It is absurd to suggest that a 16-year old who knows nothing

about bridge won't try the game because he is told that certain

conventions are not allowed in his club (after all, he knows

nothing about bridge)

 

This comment totally misses the point. My point is that many young players are driven away from the game because of the failure to allow room for experimentation. I know of a number of such examples. Perhaps you should ask the question why Bridge numbers are increasing in NZ, Aust etc and declining in other countries. Youth Bridge is growing here, why? Perhaps you should also ask why it would seem that lols are not driven away from the game in countries which have more liberal regulations.

[Rain]

Just a few thoughts.. :

 

Free: "Let a TV chanel broadcast bridge tournaments, people will watch (just like chess games - also long time ago I saw one on television)... "

 

I think sadly, bridge on TV would just drive people away even more. (Unless they are already enthusiasts of course) Its not self explanatory, its not obvious what the experts are doing, current experts are not flamboyant enough! haha, and cards are too small, etc...

 

Table tennis appear to be gaining favour with international audience nowadays, and is even shown on ESPN more than in the past. (Could be just ESPN singapore though, I am not sure about other countries' ESPN) What happened was, about 2-3 years ago, ITTF changed the rules to make table tennis more attractive. Major changes include

1)scoring system to make it much more exciting, easier for an upset.

2)making the balls bigger so that the game slows down, makes it more TV friendly, makes the ball easier to spot on TV too !

 

Main changes. Bridge on TV will need something exciting too.....

 

The saint :"To counter this, perhaps Bill Gates could bundle Bridge software with every copy of Windows he sells. He can afford it. I know he likes the game. And how many players (especially youngsters)would have their curiosity aroused by it. GO ON BILL. DO IT!"

 

Free :"The idea of Bill Gates inserting Bridge into windows would indeed be a great idea, but NOBODY will understand it! It's not playing Hearts or Freecell, it's BIDDING, showing shape, strength,... Imo, it's extremely difficult to learn that by just playing or kibitzing the game"

 

I think this also means the software included for free will suck. Heh. Unless Bill includes bm2k in every copy of course...i'll love that!

 

And I think Justin and Fred are right about beginners, youth or otherwise...beginners will be intimidated without protection. I know I was, and now i still think it scary when opponents wield many gadgets, but its interesting to see what they do, and sometimes try to imitate them! But back when I knew absolutely nothing...if I'd faced opponents who used 4NT blackwood I'd have ran in the other direction. Luckily I was on yahoo! (or earlier even, playing "floating bridge" and having fun bidding 6NT then asking for A♠ as partner.)

[fred]

Fred,

It is no secret that Wolff actively campaigned against allowing liberalisation of systems and conventions. Have you read some of his comments and decisions in Appeals committees of which he was a member? "Appeals Committee

Decisions From The 1994 NEC World Championships in

Albuquerque" (Devyn Press, 1995), is worth a read.

 

Re Meckstroth and his motives, you may know him well, however I stand by my claim. His behaviour directed at a visiting Australian team last year when he was playing with and attempting to protect his client was disgraceful to say the least. I would point any interested parties to the following link to allow them to judge for themselves:

http://www.nswba.com.au/news/JDR_4B.htm

 

I also refer you to comments that Richard Willey, (Hrothgar), has made regarding his dealings with him, and the intransigence shown.

 

Having read some of your posts on this topic in the past I am aware of your views and was half expecting a comment from you. Needless to say, I disagree with you strongly on this issue:

 

It is absurd to suggest that a 16-year old who knows nothing

about bridge won't try the game because he is told that certain

conventions are not allowed in his club (after all, he knows

nothing about bridge)

 

This comment totally misses the point. My point is that many young players are driven away from the game because of the failure to allow room for experimentation. I know of a number of such examples. Perhaps you should ask the question why Bridge numbers are increasing in NZ, Aust etc and declining in other countries. Youth Bridge is growing here, why? Perhaps you should also ask why it would seem that lols are not driven away from the game in countries which have more liberal regulations.

Agree that Wolff is against the liberalization of conventions,

but that is not the point. The point is that your post suggested

that he has some kind of ulterior motive for this position

(ie that Wolff knows his views are *wrong* but that he has

something personal to gain from them).

 

Similarly, you have no way of knowing if Meckstroth was

"trying to protect his client" in the incident that is described

on the web site you mentioned. Most likely he would have

handled the incident the same way regardless of who his

partner happened to be.

 

I am all for hearing opposing views, but that is no excuse

for character assassination.

 

I happen to have heard some horror stories about the

behavior of the pair you mention from Australia (which I

won't mention here because I have no idea if they are true

or not). Maybe there is more to this story than that which

was included in their report.

 

As for the argument that "bridge is growing in Australia and

NZ but shrinking in USA", sorry but I don't buy it. Even if

this is true (and I have not seen the numbers from any kind

of reliable source), this does not imply in any way that the

difference in system regulations is the reason.

 

How about his argument: Bridge was most popular in North

America in the 1950s and 1960s when system restrictions

were much stronger than they are now. Perhaps we should

go back to the rules we had then...

 

I am not saying I buy this either, but it makes at least as

much sense as the argument you put forward.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

I think this also means the software included for free will suck. Heh. Unless Bill includes bm2k in every copy of course...i'll love that!

Ofcourse, everything about windows sucks, but what you gonna do? Right: install it and run BBO :D

[mikestar]

A radical suggestion for the ACBL. Stop trying to cater to the players who love conventions and the players who hate them in the same events. Have some games with the Limited Convention Chart (perhaps made even more restrictive) and the rest with the Mid Chart without the preapproved defense requirement. Clubs would be encouraged to but not required to offer both typs of games and tournaments would be required to offer a minimum percentage of each--the exact balance to be determined by player demand.

 

I'm not at all sure this is a good idea--my purpose is to stimulate discussion. But I do feel that very few players are happy with the GCC. The players who want protection from what they view as excessive artificiality must cringe to know that a system as different from 2/1 as Key Lime Precision is GCC legal. [Not a criticism of KLP. It is an excellent system.] On the other hand, experimenters don't like the GCC's restrictiveness, particularly in the area of weak bids.

 

Personally, I will play against anything up to and including forcing pass. If they are good enough to play such complex systems expertly they would have also beaten me playing SAYC. And if they only think they can handle such a system, I will have a fine chance of winning against them even if they would have beaten me playing SAYC.

[badderzboy]

As someone new to the game and relatively young at 35 I was attracted to playing bridge for a number of reasons.

 

I played Whist with my parents as a child and so enjoyed playing cards and I also played Chess quite well but stopped when I got into competitive sport.

 

During the last 15 years I have not seen anything to advertise the game either at University or externally and my interest tweaked as I enjoy cruising and attended a couple of ship lessons 18 months ago to see what it was all about and was advised to try LTPB by the lecturer and on a later trip advised to try to play online (BBO was recommended).

 

I am now hooked to say the least and being a Brit play either ACOL or SAYC as required.

 

BBO has been a revelation for me with the myriad of lessons available for beginners+ and opportunity to play and all for free!

 

Indeed the best thing that could happen for bridge to promote it for younger people would be to tie get Yahoo/MSN Zone/Gameplay to use BBO instead of their software and this would introduce more people to the game in an environment where they could play and learn! I am also aware of the danger of people trying to spoil what is a superb place to play the game.

 

In terms of the conventions arguement - Its a mute point for getting people to learn the game - the fewer conventions the better to start with. I sometimes feel people are inventing them not to improve their constructive bidding but to confuse as many opps as possible to improve their score not by superior play but by baffling the opps. If you're playing me you'll beat me by better play just bid simply to do it!

 

I would think that for beginners / intermediates to play in a level playing field with fairly stringent controls can only be good and allow people to win by card play first and then as they improve - the next step is their own system / defences to play at the advanced / expert level. If this is ACBL's approach it should be condoned not criticised.

 

 

Steve

[eyhung]

A good topic, but I see it has devolved into the usual scientist vs. naturalist wranglings, a topic that generates far more heat than light.

 

My opinion is that people tend to superimpose their personal views for improving the game as the "solution" towards bridge's popularity. After all, if X were changed, they would like the game better, so why wouldn't more people like the game better? I think such a view is simplistic. For example, I believe that if many more conventions were allowed (or banned) there would be little significant change. More scientists would play (or quit), but then more naturalists would do the opposite. No, I think the problem is due to a combination of factors beyond the technical: namely, cultural, social, and marketing. Not just one, but all of these need to be addressed before a "tipping point" in bridge popularity is reached.

 

Why do I believe this? Because I look at why things in general are popular, before pinning the blame on convention support or the lack thereof. Take bridge in the 30s, and then poker in 2003.

 

Why did bridge become so popular in the 30s?

 

1) It was a high quality game.

 

2) It was invented by Harold Vanderbilt, one of the social elite of New York. Everyone wanted to play his version of auction bridge, in order to be like the Vanderbilts.

 

3) It was new, so the gap between experts and beginners was not so great as it is now. The experts could play the cards very well, but bidding did not require nearly as much study as it does now.

 

4) The Great Depression gave us little outlet for cheap entertainment beyond games centered around the family and close friends.

 

5) It was heavily promoted by a marketing genius, Ely Culbertson.

 

Now compare this to the situation today:

 

1) It is still a high quality game, despite heated disagreements about conventions and appeals committees. But quality alone does not guarantee popularity. (See Monopoly vs. recent German-style board games, Betamax vs. VHS, Eagle potato chips vs. Lays, any reasonable OS vs. Windows, etc.)

 

2) Few celebrities play bridge, so there are no significant social factors. The only super-famous person who frequently talks about bridge is Bill Gates. (Yes, I greatly admire Warren Buffett and acknowledge Omar Sharif, but they are not celebrities people focus on.)

 

3) It is a mature game, with lots of theory that a novice must learn before he can become competent, let alone expert. Thus, the gap appears huge and it is mostly students, retirees, or the unemployed who have the time and effort to close this gap.

 

4) In our affluent and highly mobile society, we have far more options and avenues for entertainment than a card game. We have a wide variety of physical sports, PlayStations, movies, concerts, and parties at our convenience. Bridge must compete with all of these alternatives.

 

5) There is nobody promoting bridge to a mass media outlet. We just had a sensational World Championship, with the outcome resting on the final (and controversial) board, and there was practically no mention of it in the mainstream press.

 

6) With near-instantaneous communications and catering of personal demands, our culture has shifted focus from a slow appreciation of subtleties to instant and immediate gratification. This does not help bridge, which requires a lot of effort to appreciate, let alone master. (I see this also in the decline of classical music, theater, poetry readings, letter writing, and other culturally out-of-tune pursuits.)

 

Now, let's look at poker, also a card game, but which got massively popular in America in 2003. Like bridge, poker had a poor image problem before last year, that of degenerate gamblers wasting their money and lives. But:

 

1) Like bridge, it is also a great game.

 

2) Many celebrities are shown playing and enjoying poker. People want to be like Ben Affleck or Matt Damon or David Schwimmer. And great poker players are becoming celebrities in their own right, because of the large amounts of money that they are winning.

 

3) Poker is not as deep as bridge, because there are fewer decision branches, and short-term results are much more dependent on psychology and luck rather than skill and theory. Thus it is far more accessible to the casual player, and even an amateur can play with the experts and win the world championship (as in 2002 and 2003).

 

4) Poker is being written up everywhere in the media, and many networks are now sponsoring poker shows. They're even airing a poker show opposite the Super Bowl later this month.

 

5) Poker is a much faster-paced game than bridge, with a hand every 1-2 minutes instead of 7-10, and is thus more culturally attuned.

 

6) Poker is an interesting spectator sport, because the hole card cameras give the viewer enough information to play along and experience the agonies and ecstasies of the game. This markets the game far more effectively than anything Audrey Grant could say.

 

I am not saying that poker is a better game; however, it is far more suitable than bridge to being popular because it is not in conflict with as many of the negative factors I mentioned earlier. And until bridge resolves the social, cultural, and marketing issues I cited above, I doubt any technical changes such as convention restrictions will make the game widely popular.

 

Eugene Hung

[mr1303]

In my experience the problem is not the lack of young people playing the game, but the stereotype. Most non bridge people assume that bridge is for the "nearly dead" to quote a few of my friends, despite the fact that several young celebrities play, including Radiohead, Clive Anderson, Martina Navratilova etc (source: Christine Duckworth, EBU education services manager). However, the situation in the UK is not nearly as bad as you seem to think it is.

 

I'm strongly involved in (British) university bridge, and amongst the top universities, the skill level is up there. Maybe not world class, but we'd give most advanced/expert players a good game.

 

I've also noticed that there are a lot of young (under 25) players using BBO. As far as I'm concerned, this has to be a good thing.

 

Mark Reeve

 

General Secretary

 

University of Bristol Bridge Club

[Free]

As I said before, it's not a problem of keeping the current players, the problem is to get people at the table to learn the game. If that doesn't happen, you won't get new players. And how do you get people at a table? Like eyhung pointed out: resolving the social, cultural, and marketing issues. If that works, then we should look at the current regulations. Do you think someone new to bridge will say "I don't like all these regulations" when he has never played the game? No, but once he has learned it, he might change his opinion about it. And by then, we have already a new bridgeplayer :D

[hallway]

Justin - fear not - the BILlies are coming !!

 

BTW the members that were there during your visit the other day thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

 

The Beginner Intermediate Lounge's youngest member is the sprightly age of 10 - TEN !! <I had beetter confess I have not actually seen the birth certificate !! >

 

I am getting more and more applications each day from people who are telling me they are in the 16 - 35 age bracket who want to join because they have discovered bridge on the internet and now want to LEARN how to play it.

 

And ,imho, if they are not going to join a Bridge Club they have found the very BEST place on the Net to LEARN and become addicted to the GAME.

 

BBO's Beginner Intermediate Lounge is proud of the diverse range of learning / competing activities that is offered TO all ages BY all ages

[Trpltrbl]

Free:

18 whaaaat???

Children can start learning bridge at 6. At the age of 11/12 they can play normal tournaments with a good int/adv level and can reach expert level by the age of 14/15 same as in chess but harder because some extra skills are needed.

If you start teaching mini-bridge at schools children interested can then move on to bridge as a sport.

I started playing when I was 11, together with my little brothers!!! and we were playing, a few years later, already national championships. But to say I was an expert already at that early age I will not say, I do think you can play good but you are still a kid and kids wanna have fun. Bridgeplayers are a breed apart at a younger age and you either are a bridgeplayer or not. At an older age people start playing because of social aspects, we started because of our passion for cardplay :blink: And of course the many nights of rubberbridge were lots of fun too.

 

Mike :blink:

[bearmum]

I think bridge doesn't suit all temperements.  Most children/youths will be at a point in life where more physically energetic activities appeal.  I've observed my friends' preferences over the years.  Girls <18 or so and Guys up till 25 mostly cannot seem to sit still to even concentrate 1 hour on reading.

How come MOST teenagers can spend HOURS and HOURS playing mindless (as in not much brainpower required :blink: )computer games -- killing enemies etc --- and not be able to sit still long enough to TRY to learn to play a CHALLENGING game :P

 

The LARGE majority of children -- youths (AND adults unfortunately ) in USA and and Australia ( as I know from living in BOTH places) are "couch potatoes" and don't want to be physically challenged

 

SO I guess Bridge folk need to get others involved with the MANTAL challenge of Bridge - and hopefully sites like BBO will help - ALL you need is the desire to learn - an internet connection -- BBO installed --- AND HOPEFULLY :blink: long time bridge players prepared to help NEWBIES to the game to start playing

[keylime]

I started this game on a dare, literally - only 4 short years ago, and I'm amazed at the skill level I've obtained in that short time considering that in those four years maybe two I was actively playing due to living circumstances. I'd offer bridge in the schools and get them starting BEFORE the mindless computer games take over myself...

[DrTodd13]

Lots of comments on the previous posts here.

 

1) Look at what DeBeers did with diamonds in the movies 50, 60, 70

years ago. DeBeers payed hollywood to make diamond engagement

rings a big part of certain movies and the next thing you know, everybody

wants a diamond ring. This has continued until this day. That is the power

of marketing. As much as I hate DeBeers, maybe ACBL should buy some

of their marketing team to help us. This goes along with the Anna K.

suggestion. Yes, Bill G plays but who wants to be like Bill G aside from the

money? Have a blockbuster movie with famous actors that somehow

revolves around bridge and you'll have an instant resurgence. Getting

"cool" celebrities to play the game and advertise that fact would help but

do we have the money for such extravagence?

 

2) Let's not talk about Meckstroth's or Wolff's motives. Let's look at results.

It is pretty clear now that the strategy of GCC in nearly every event along with

the current ACBL marketing scheme is not working. If we tried relaxing

system restrictions and things got better then we could say that what

Meckstroth and Wolff did was bad for the game. In general though, I think

their role is overstated. The ACBL should be running unlimited system

events when the tournament is large enough. If you can get enough kids

interested then junior events would also be a good idea. Personally, I've

almost quit playing bridge in real life because of system restrictions. That is

not the norm but if ACBL wants to retain people like me then they have to

do something.

 

3) We need to get bridge into the schools. Not only is it fun but it is a great learning tool. And another thing, as a society we need to slow down. From my

perspective, families are running themselves ragged with too many activities. All of the young kids I've run across at bridge tourneys are there because they wanted to learn after seeing their parents or grandparents play. How can kids

see these people play if they don't have any free time? So, bridge could be a family activity once kids get a certain age. This is one of the reasons that many

people that learn when they are young give it up until their kids are out of the house. I'm sure in a few years I'll have little Dr. Todd Jr. on my lap helping kick some butt on BBO. It would surprise me if he wouldn't show interest in the game after a while.

[Free]

Maybe reversed psychology could help. If parents tell all their kids to play bridge, they won't simply because the parents told them. BUT if parents forbid to play bridge (!!!) they will show interest, because forbidden things have more attraction :ph34r:

[tigerboy]

I think that most national bridge organisations could learn a lot from the Scandinavian ruling bodies who always seem to have a huge percentage of their total population playing the game.

The number of conventions allowed is irrelevant and most, surely, are not in favour of restriction, but there is a need for skilled marketing personnel to promote the game. The burgeoning of internet bridge is surely good news for recruitment as long as a germ of interest can somehow be engendered, particularly among the younger element when the ability to learn quickly is at its peak.

[Gerben47]

Wow... What a thread has this become. I was away for a while so I have to catch up.

 

First of all on the article where Meckwell are not portrayed very positively. I don't think he was protecting his client, it's just that he thought the opening bid was not allowed in this particular event. Either he was right or he wasn't. Anyway, the fault was with the director who should not have allowed such a discussion. But it must be hard for a director to tell one of the greatest players of all time to shut up.

 

The other director who said that if he was called again that the team would be kicked out of the tournament should be taken away his directing licence in my opinion.

 

Now for the real topic.

 

When I started I was very young (11 or so) and at some point my partner and I started to play in a local bridge club. Many welcomed us, but some didn't. They didn't like kids in their club, and even more so if they are above them in the ranking. That didn't scare me away though, bridge is just too much fun. It might scare away others, though.

 

Another part is letting kids know that other kids are playing this game as well, and not just "nerds". They are trying in the USA, I know that, as I have been to one of their junior camps. Now the trick is to reach those who don't play. There are enough kids who are interested, even though most are not.

 

It's simply not true that kids in Europe don't play those same mindless computer games. They do. That's not the difference. I'm not sure what is...

[irdoz]

This thread makes interesting reading. A few thoughts of my own to pollute this thread....

 

Computer games are not mindless. I've played many. Go to some RPG onllne sites and youll find over 50,000 people playing at any one time (mostly under 25 year olds) with thriving 'virtual communities' associated with them. Many so called mindless computer games offer significant intellectual challenges... I only say this not because I think they compare to bridge - but because unless you understand their attraction you'll never understand how to market bridge to the next generation.

 

IMHO bridge thrived in the past because it was marketed well, there was not as many alternatives, it was a social activity that could be played by extended families and social groups (something that rarely seems to happen in my culture now anyway), and it blended well with the dominant cultural values and mores of the time.

 

There are some places like Holland and Poland where bridge still appears to be integrated into patterns of social and family life, and in Turkey, India, China and Indonesia where bridge appears to be thriving - although some (not all) of these places have huge populations and the large numbers of online players from these countries may just reflect that or it may be something about alternatives and values in those places.

 

While claims have been made about bridge thriving in Australia that is not my experience..I am within walking distance of three clubs and none of them seem to be doing particularly well..and there is only one night a week in one club where I am likely to find people within thirty years of my age. I learnt bridge on the Internet and started playing face to face here with someone who also learnt on the Internet. As a result we played 'americanised' bridge and 2 over 1 - and in Australia with its 'liberal system regulations' we copped a lot of grief for playing 'wierd foreign methods'.

 

What made bridge suitable for me was the Internet. On the net a whole lot of barriers get broken down like age, nationality, class. Going out at night to be social with a bunch of people over double my age doesn't really work for me. Jumping on my computer at 5am in the morning and playing a tournament with a partner on the other side of the world and then going to work fits better with the way my life is organised.

 

I have met dozens of people my age where playing a few sessions at odd hrs at their convenience fits into their lives whereas playing f2f at night doesnt.

 

I see online bridge as an integal part of the future of this game - and not as part of some recruiting strategy for getting new people to play face to face - while that will happen it is also the case that many people - both old and young - prefer to play on the Internet. "Real" bridge will only ever be recognised through what happens in face to face competition because of the unsolvable cheating problems endemic in online bridge. Online bridge should be recognised as a different game, played in a different media with different rules. For example, online bridge allows self-alerting. When I am queried if I have no agreement with my partner I disclose what I think my partner should know (or what I intended the bid to mean)..so often I get the firm lecture that 'your opps are not entitled to know more than yr partner' and 'if there's no agreement say so'...I think this is an example of a lack of lateral thinking, and not in the spirit of the intent of the laws.

 

If anything would have put me off this game it is the highly emotional contestation over alerts and disclosure and the laws in online bridge. The first tournament I played in was onlnie. I knew nothing about many aspects of the laws, and my obligations. Suddenly I found myself made to feel like a criminal because I didnt alert 2nt in an auction 1nt-2c-2d-2nt as "May not have a 4 card major'.

 

Directors having to deal with angst about alerts, disclosure and the rules, often rushed off their feet (I went and got qualified as a director and have directed online for over 2 years now) in an environment where many people do not communicate in english and where the only mechanism of communication is typed words when 90% of communication is non-verbal cues that don't operate online is a major challenge. So often I want to say relax, relax, relax in response to lots of online bridge behaviour...and I wish I could bring my script pad when I direct.

 

So one aspect in thinking about 'the future of bridge' might be articles about online bridge - about survival skills online, about how to communicate, about tolerance for cultural diversity and language differences, about the fact that ACBL laws, alerts and procedures aren't global, about how to find partners, about how to deal with some of the problematic personality types (the lecturing expert, the resulter, the implied accusations of cheating, the poor sport etc.) and some introductory guides to bridge online and tournament behaviour.

 

Thats enuff pollution...

[Free]

Computer games are not mindless. I've played many. Go to some RPG onllne sites and youll find over 50,000 people playing at any one time (mostly under 25 year olds) with thriving 'virtual communities' associated with them. Many so called mindless computer games offer significant intellectual challenges... I only say this not because I think they compare to bridge - but because unless you understand their attraction you'll never understand how to market bridge to the next generation.

I absolutely agree! Some people seem to be blind about bridge and say its for old people, other just think that computergames are totally mindless. If you have no experience in a certain topic, I think you shouldn't give your opinion about it. I play a lot of strategy games (RTS) and I can assure you that you'll lose without thinking!

[Trpltrbl]

Re Meckstroth and his motives, you may know him well, however I stand by my claim. His behaviour directed at a visiting Australian team last year when he was playing with and attempting to protect his client was disgraceful to say the least. I would point any interested parties to the following link to allow them to judge for themselves:

http://www.nswba.com.au/news/JDR_4B.htm

I have played against Jeff and Eric more then a few times, and they always had clients. I too was playing some not everyday openings, and after I gave them the written suggested defense they had no problem at all. I think that if you play in a tournament with certain conventions that happen to be strange in that part of the world, you should maybe find out what is and is not allowed and go from there. I read the article and it seems the team is playing a string of tournaments in ACBL country. Find out what is legal and what you need to do to make it legal. I think Jeff had every right to get mad, especially because the Aussi team made it to the finals without even haven a written defense for the 2http://mnet.bg/~mfn/c.gif opening. And I am sure they had to tell all the other teams they played about it, but maybe Jeff was only one to speak his mind.

And as for the Directors, they overreacted but maybe they had gotten a few other complains about these players. Sometimes players don't confront the players but go to director and complain.

 

Mike :ph34r:

 

 

P.S. Is this the same Aussi team that played at Nationals some years ago in CA? They had same problem there too then, some of the names sound familiar.

[DrTodd13]

Don't know if anybody brought this up but the issue as I understand

it with the Australian bridge tourists was using 2♣ or 2♦ for

Ekrens where a defense for 2♦ or 2♥ respectively were already

approved. The argument of "use the already approved defense but

make the extra step that you get as a natural bid" didn't seem to hold

water. There was the tourney itself and then the systems committee.

What I find ridiculous is for 2♥ Ekrens to be allowed but not 2♦

Ekrens. Either all flavors of Ekrens should be allowed or none should

be allowed. Very few of us have first hand knowledge although mine

is probably closer than some but if I got the facts of the case wrong

then just take this as a philosophical point.

[Jlall]

Recently on the most popular poker forum I found a 2700+ post thread on bridge, and most of the posters are young people (some of them post here). I still think tapping into other games like poker and spades is a great way to attract young people to bridge. The #1 thing bridge has going for it is being the most interesting/complex card game around. Naturally that should appeal to young card players from other games.

[Hanoi5]

That is true but I think the bridge 'movie' suggestion is also important. All games have had a movie depicting the life of players (pool, poker, you name it) and the way it is played in tourneys. And also on TV, there was a CSI case of a Scrabble player killed with some letter pieces into his mouth, what about a bridge murde? those are more interesting.