Bridge dying?

[HeavyDluxe]

IMO, bridge has the following problems that prevent a resurgence to popularity... I will use the surge in popularity of poker as a comparison (though, admittedly, not a perfect one).

 

A simplicity problem - Learning to play bridge is relatively hard. The scoring is difficult to understand, the bidding language is a barrier, and the nuances of cardplay take time to appreciate. By contrast, hold'em can be taught in 1 minute, what hand beats another can fit on the back of a playing card, and the strategy/scoring are seemingly obvious.

 

A publicity problem - Most people are fundamentally unaware that bridge exists as a 'serious game'. Poker is all over our TV sports networks.

 

An image problem - Where bridge is known, it is thought of as a stodgy game for the old and elite. "My grandma plays bridge at the senior center every week." And while it is cool that Gates and Buffet play, in some sense they perpetuate the image of the game as 'elite' and 'nerdy'. Poker, on the other hand, has re-invigorated the 'gambler' image and is viewed as thriving/youthful.

 

The solutions, I think, are obvious, though hardly easy to execute:

1) Figure out appropriate 'gateway' games that build into playing bridge (like Mini-bridge) and find a way to get people playing it. I think a return to 'natural' bidding would help here too - even better if a couple select, highly visible events would get some pros to test skills that way.

 

2) Bridge needs exposure in the media. Whatever can be done to get some tournaments on TV should be done (again, especially if the bidding complexities can be explained or ignored in the telecast).

 

3) When bridge is exposed, a broader swath of players needs to be seen. The game needs to work to market the diversity of age and 'lifestyles' of it's players - with particular focus on people the younger generation of players. Their image will go a long way into breathing life into things. Show the old elite, too, but show them at the table with the talented junior in his jeans and wrinkled t-shirt.

[onoway]

If you are going to show tourneys in the media and expect the game to draw more people into it as a result I suggest it would need to both 1) have a super commentary as to what is going on and 2) be some sort of speedball. A game where nobody apparently does anything for minutes at a time does not lend itself to being a spectator sport for the uninitiated.

[ArcLight]

>>A simplicity problem - Learning to play bridge is relatively hard. The scoring is difficult to understand, the bidding language is a barrier, and the nuances of cardplay take time to appreciate. By contrast, hold'em can be taught in 1 minute, what hand beats another can fit on the back of a playing card, and the strategy/scoring are seemingly obvious.

 

 

This is the heart of the matter. Its very hard to convince people to learn basic bidding rules when its so much easier to do/play something else. This type of game is learned if you grow up in a house hold/environment where its played (like school).

 

This is why I hink a very bare bones (and crappy) system would be good to get people palying the game.

[babushkka]

If you are going to show tourneys in the media and expect the game to draw more people into it as a result I suggest it would need to both 1) have a super commentary as to what is going on and 2) be some sort of speedball. A game where nobody apparently does anything for minutes at a time does not lend itself to being a spectator sport for the uninitiated.

Some people take a long time in poker. Just a little editing and no one knows.

[suokko]

>>A simplicity problem - Learning to play bridge is relatively hard. The scoring is difficult to understand, the bidding language is a barrier, and the nuances of cardplay take time to appreciate. By contrast, hold'em can be taught in 1 minute, what hand beats another can fit on the back of a playing card, and the strategy/scoring are seemingly obvious.

 

 

This is the heart of the matter.  Its very hard to convince people to learn basic bidding rules when its so much easier to do/play something else.  This type of game is learned if you grow up in a house hold/environment where its played (like school).

 

This is why I hink a very bare bones (and crappy) system would be good to get people palying the game.

You just need a simple score reference table:

[space] [space] [cl] [space] [space][di] [space] [space][he] [space] [space][sp] [space] [space]NT
1 [space] 70 [space] 70 [space] 80 [space] 80 [space] 90
2 [space] 90 [space] 90 [space]110 [space]110 [space]120
3 [space]110 [space]110 [space]140 [space]140 [space]600
....
7 1440 1440 1510 1510 1520
OT +20 [space]+20 [space]+30 [space]+30 [space]+30

 

and of course another table for red.

 

I think this kind of scoring tables should be standard part of beginner course. I could create printable pdf version if anyone wants. :)

[Vilgan]

Few thoughts:

 

1) #1 reason I've seen existing players of all ages quit is "I hit LM, and the higher levels seem sort of meaningless". I'm pretty disappointed that the ACBL STILL has all levels after the LM mark be total points/attendance awards only. If they don't feel likely to win a national championship.. there isn't much left for goal oriented people. Video games know this... WoW (most profitable video game I know of in the US) has thousands of milestones for their players to hit. 50+ other milestones that cater to all types of players (lots of gold points, lots of club points, platinum points, etc) should be a no brainer. Instead the ACBL sits around priding themselves on increasing the requirements for the ONE noticeable milestone they have. Blah.

 

2) A good idea (imo) would be getting bridge recognized by some mathematical accreditation deal for colleges. We've had people try to teach university intermission classes at nearby colleges and the colleges told them to take a hike. Like.. everything is okay for intermission classes here... weaving/baking/singing in a forest, etc. Ping pong is 3 credits but bridge gets laughed at? meh.

 

3) System - I really really hate being forced to play GCC at the club. I wish I could play midchart stuff at the club (mostly polish club) so I'd be more comfortable playing against it at nationals. I don't think it causes many people to quit though.

 

4) TV: doable, but edit the snot out of it. Get some good personalities in there (Zia is hilarious!) and cut 64 boards of play down to an hour. Or get Gates and Buffet and 2 other intermediate players to play. Its easier to explain intermediate mistakes/smart things than expert plays.

 

Movie like Rounders would be awesome, but I'm not sure I see it happening anytime soon.

[gnasher]

#1 reason I've seen existing players of all ages quit is "I hit LM, and the higher levels seem sort of meaningless".

For such people, bridge was already dead.

[Vilgan]

#1 reason I've seen existing players of all ages quit is "I hit LM, and the higher levels seem sort of meaningless".

For such people, bridge was already dead.

Poetic statement but not really true imo. You can enjoy/love the game and still be goal oriented. Many people have a variety of interests/loves, and if a better milestone system tilts their interest towards participating in bridge tournaments isn't that a good thing?

[pdmunro]

The following rings true with me.

 

Comments by Ulf Andersson (Chess GM, 58 yrs old in 2009, chess professional since he turned 19)

 

Inteviewer

"What do you think would be necessary to do in order to make chess as popular a sport as, for example, football or tennis… ?

 

Andersson

I do not consider chess as a sport, what so ever. ... Why would chess be as popular like football or tennis? It is how it is! Just to realise the fact. I like sports a lot. I prefer to look at sports, rather than chess on TV, when there is chess on TV. I prefer to look a game where Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester or Chelsea are playing, than to look at a chess game. I would look at a chess games on the professional interest, not for fun!

 

Source: http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2009_12_04_archive.html

 

      ******************

Personally, I would characterise bridge as an intellectual contest that can bring satisfaction to those who like solving puzzles in a competitive atmosphere. In comparison, sport is primarily a physical contest that can immediately engage the emotions of viewers without necessarily requiring any intellectual involvement. Viewing physical contests surely evokes a more viseral response - one involving our "reptilian brain", that part of our brain concerned with fundamental needs such as survival, dominance, preening and mating.

 

Do we really think that the puzzle-solving part of our brain can compete with our "reptilian brain" when it comes to spectator interest and involvement?

[gwnn]

the problem is not that bridge is not as popular as football, it is that it is much less popular than 20 years ago and the average age is growing and...

[nige1]

the problem is not that bridge is not as popular as football, it is that it is much less popular than 20 years ago and the average age is growing and...

IMO We want more players rather than just spectators.

[blackshoe]

I think Peter hit on a good point. "Spectator" sports are such because first, most people aren't equipped to play them — professionally, anyway — and second, the spectator gets a vicarious thrill out of watching. Bridge isn't really like that. Most people are equipped to play bridge pretty decently, even professionally, and the real thrill is in playing yourself, not watching someone else play.

[mycroft]

I'm goal oriented (sometimes), and continue to be a bridge player. There are many goals to reach after your gold card:

 

- Make the second day of the Red Ribbons

- Make the qualifier of the Open two-session pairs game (if you have one, and haven't yet)

- Qualify for NAP/GNT

- Win the second match of the Spingold/Vanderbilt

- Place in Flight A of your regional pairs games/Sunday Swiss

- Never being able to play in Flight B again (unfortunately, they keep changing the flights around here so that I fail at this)

- Endplay/squeeze/get a play compliment from a Name Pro

 

And then we go to the big ones:

- Place in the RRs

- Make the second day of the LMP/Blue Ribbons

- Make the third day of those events

- Play in your national team qualifiers

- Make it out of the RR of your national team qualifiers

 

And the real evil one:

- Don't screw up for N hands in a row. When you succeed, increment N and repeat.

 

Effectively, "do better than you have before." They aren't Achievements that get put in your book for all to see, but you know, the people that count do see them, and do mention it.

[Jlall]

Mycroft, winning the second match of the vanderbilt/spingold is by far the hardest one you listed (assuming you are not seeded well), even harder than making it out of the RR of the team trials. I would definitely put it in the "big ones" category, or even make a seperate category for it + making it out of the RR of the trials.

[mycroft]

Justin, on thinking, you are certainly correct.

 

It is too easy to get to the second day, especially with the 4-into-3 seeding, for it to be in the calibre I wanted; but of course, unless you are playing a 40-25 match or closer, it's probably "story-of-a-lifetime" for non-top-top-flighters.

 

Thanks for the correction, and well done in SD. Unfortunate, but well done.

[mrdct]

I'm not as alarmist as some with regards to the high average age of bridge players which is often reported as 69 for the ACBL and I wouldn't expect it to be much lower than that in Australia.

 

On my anecdotal observations, a lot of people don't take up the game (or don't start playing with any regularity) until they reach retirement age or have got a lot of other significant lifetime milestones of family and career behind them. With life expectancy increasing and retirement age decreasing there is always going to be a substantial population of oldies to take up the game, pay membership dues, pay table fees, buy bridge books and play in tournaments or online.

 

I'm all in favour of geting younger people into the game, but the bread and butter for the survival of game will continue to be the older demographic who have the time, money and social reasons to play bridge. The apparent fact the the average age of the bridge population is increasing does not mean the game is dying.

[Vilgan]

I'm goal oriented (sometimes), and continue to be a bridge player.  There are many goals to reach after your gold card:

 

stuff

Yes, but universal goals usually have more appeal than personal goals. How many times have we heard people countdown various colored points to get LM? Hell I did it, and I had all my gold at my first regional.

 

No reason the ACBL can't take those goals you mentioned, add another 40 or so, and add titles/ranks/stuff like that to them. Instead we have 1 rank which has specific requirements that people work towards, and everything after that is merely "how many total points do you have" which is pretty meh given how TERRIBLE many people over 10,000 are.

 

Can either parallel existing ranks like:

 

Silver Master = 1000 points

Silver+ Master = 1000 points, 15 platinum, 100 gold/silver, 3(5?) regional wins of flight B or better

Gold Master = 2500 points

Gold+ Master = 2500 points, 50 platinum, 250 gold, 3 regional wins of flight A/bracket 1

 

etc

 

Or just make a bunch of ranks/achievements that exist separate from the existing bronze/silver/gold/etc system. These can be completely separate, so that you have a really KO rank/title but a lower pairs one if you focus mostly on KOs. Or vice versa. I dunno, it seems like a no brainer from a marketing standpoint, that also has the nice effect (imo) of more bridge players. Some of these who would have quit will be bad, but not all of them (imo).

[A2003]

Bridge is dying:

Too much Alert procedure.

Law and rules helps too much to the defensive team.

Standardize the various system notes to establish the non-alert bidding method.

Deviation from non-standard system notes will only require alerts.

[mycroft]

One thing about the youth/senior bridge discussion:

 

How many of today's senior "newcomers" learned bridge (at least coffeetable bridge) in university, couldn't keep it up when they got a job/family, and see a beginners class after retirement and think "you know, I enjoyed that back then, I should see if I still would"? I know there's a lot from personal discussion - in fact, I'm one of them, even though you have to change "retirement" to "go back for grad school", so it was only a 4 year hiatus.

 

Even if they don't become LM at 30/TD at 25/Tournament rated Director at 33 and play or direct three times a week, even if they never play a duplicate game after their classes, even if we lose them in a year - it is much more likely that when I'm over median age, I'll see them at the table, after *they* come back when their kids are grown if we catch them now.

[helene_t]

How many of today's senior "newcomers" learned bridge (at least coffeetable bridge) in university, couldn't keep it up when they got a job/family, and see a beginners class after retirement and think "you know, I enjoyed that back then, I should see if I still would"?

Agree.

 

I am afraid we won't have any bridge in UK in 30 years except for the big cities which have enough eccentrics to form a single club. Eccentrics who live in towns or villages will play online.

 

Bridge will survive in Poland and probably a few other countries.

[Old York]

Celebrity Poker Challenge was a big hit in UK, even tho the celebs were people like Sir Clive Sinclair, inventor of the ZX80 and the futuristic Sinclair C5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5

 

We need celebrity support urgently, or the game will die out

 

Tony

[shintaro]

;)

 

I think 'WE' the collective 'WE' bridge players are to blame for the game dying;

 

Unless 'WE' actively encourage younger players to join in and 'Nurture' them

 

:rolleyes:

[hzap3333]

For a young player, it's very difficult to find people to play bridge with (live), and it doesn't help when he walks into a local bridge club and find that everyone inside are old enough to be his grandparents... people like to associate with others of their own age; when this and playing bridge just doesn't mix, the normal action is probably stop playing it.

[hrothgar]

Celebrity Poker Challenge was a big hit in UK, even tho the celebs were people like Sir Clive Sinclair, inventor of the ZX80 and the futuristic Sinclair C5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5

 

We need celebrity support urgently, or the game will die out

 

Tony

If a game can't survive on its own merits, it deserves to die...

 

Bridge is a good game because its a hard game.

 

Pardon me if I don't want to bother with idiots who play the game because they think it lends them social status or like to ape some celebrity...

 

I rather have fewer players, but ones who actually appreciate the game for what it is.

[jdonn]

If a game can't survive on its own merits, it deserves to die...

 

Bridge is a good game because its a hard game.

 

Pardon me if I don't want to bother with idiots who play the game because they think it lends them social status or like to ape some celebrity...

 

I rather have fewer players, but ones who actually appreciate the game for what it is.

I disagree here. Maybe this is naive of me, but I think bridge is such a great game that if you get people playing for any reason then many of them will see that and continue playing bridge for life for the 'right' reasons. That's why, although learning bridge is difficult, people who completely learn how to play invariably love it.