There is an interesting thread on...

[Hanoi5]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...459c7b443cded4#

 

It's called 'Marketing Bridge'.

 

There are two important positions, I think:

 

1. ACBL (and other NBO's) should invest more into recruiting new people/marketing the game.

 

2. Systems are hard to learn for the laymen.

 

What are your opinions?

[kenrexford]

I thought about this recently. I think the discussion focuses on the absolute wrong stuff.

 

I mean, think about it. When you learned bridge, or when you recently taught someone bridge, how long did it take for that person to have any clue about systems? Were you or was that person hooked first, or did they comment, while learning what Stayman was, that the use of multi 2♦ in midchart events was really distrubing for them? Focusing on systems issue might have some relationship as to increasing or decreasing numbers of actual bridge players playing in specific events, but it has no impact on whether people do or do not learn to play bridge.

 

What about the idea of spending more on recruiting new players? Well, of course, but how is the key question. Silly things like web sites that you have to look for do not catch people who never think of looking for it. I mean, what random person looks up "Bridge is Cool" in a Google search?

 

To me, it now seems more reasonable to focus attention in the right manner. We thought of that as a community, but in a stupid way. Running a game parallel to the Olympics just makes us look stupid. It is really hard to imagine a person amazed by flipping motorcycles and speeding skis to suddenly grow interest in bridge from that experience. Instead, we offer material to Leno.

 

What disappointed me the other day was in flipping through some sort of poker magazine in the shopping line and seeing no ads for the ACBL. THAT might work. Running ads about bridge in a poker magazine, or perhaps even on TV when they broadcast the poker (or perhaps billiards) games. Of course, the ad would have to actually work for the audience. Advertising, for example, that Lou and Bob became LM's in the Pittsburgh Regional, "and you can too!" - that ain't working. But, perhaps advertising about the Cavendish, that might.

 

Something like a spread announcing the Cavendish and indicating how people bet. Then, include also references to some local regional tournament also going on. Perhaps even a web link to describe bridge in its betting sense. I mean, for these folks, wouldn't it make more sense to describe things better? Instead of "You get 170 points for making a partscore but 420 points if you bid the game," "You win $170 at high-stakes bridge if you stop but you gain $420 if it makes; of course you could lose $500 if you are doubled and fail miserably." Use the right language for the right audience.

 

Something like that.

[kenrexford]

More on the point.

 

Think about two possible ways to describe a high-stakes bridge tournament:

 

"Meckstroth decided to risk his assured game swing by venturing into the five-level for a remote slam try of 5♣. Rodwell, however, had just the right cards to make the slam playable, and went for the small slam. Now it was up to Bocchi. He found the critical lead of a small diamond, which presented Rodwell with a problem. If he flew the King, he would score up 980. However, it seemed that the Jack was the percentage play. Whatever he chose, the wrong guess would result in a huge swing of 11 IMPs. However, Rodwell knew Bocchi well and flew King, winning 11 imps and the match."

 

"Meckstroth decided to risk his assured $450,000 by venturing into the five-level for a remote slam try of 5♣. Rodwell, however, had just the right cards to make $980,000 attainable, and went for the big money. Now it was up to Bocchi. He found the critical lead of a small diamond, which presented Rodwell with a problem. If he flew the King, he would pocket $980,000. However, it seemed that the Jack was the percentage play. Whatever he chose, the wrong guess would result in Bocchi pocketing $100,000 instead of losing $980,000. However, Rodwell knew Bocchi well and flew King, winning the big prize and the match."

 

Who cares if no money really changes hands? DOes it really change hands in Texas Holdem torunaments?

[jtfanclub]

Never found systems a problem for a layman either. For a person who is just barely familiar with the game, 1♣ meaning 3+ and 2♣ being strong artificial and 2♦ being a weak 2 in either major are all equally weird.

 

Even when they're good enough to play in a club (as little as that takes), they still aren't confused by Precision bids. Or I should say, they don't find Precision bids to be more confusing than 1NT forcing, New Minor forcing, and similar methods. It's intermediate bridge players that get confused by systems.

[P_Marlowe]

#2 does not really matter

#1 sure, but as Ken pointed out, the question is how?

besides advertising you have to go to the schools and

universities, to introduce the game to the young peoble

You have to show, that the game can be played in a

casual manner, without a lot of forced rules, which are

just an overhead.

It may be worth while to repopularize money tournament

forms, like Chicage or ...

I think it is possible to design multi table events similar to

poker, you have to win the table to advance to the next

rounds, taking your money with you, the stakes being raise

in regular fashion.

The factor luck will increase, but in the end, the best player

will win most of the time.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[awm]

Bridge is never going to have the kind of mass-market appeal that poker has. The fact is, learning to play poker is a lot easier than learning to play bridge. And while top poker players are both better at reading people and better at computing odds than ordinary folks, neither of these makes any of the plays they employ particularly hard to understand. Most people aren't going to understand what an expert is doing with a squeeze play, and the bidding in bridge is even more opaque.

 

I think a better model is to consider chess. The rules of chess are more complex than poker, and the huge literature on opening sequences (which most casual players don't really understand) is mirrored by the literature on bridge bidding. In general chess isn't shown on TV. But chess is doing quite well these days (relatively speaking). So what's the difference?

 

1. Almost everyone knows the basics of chess. While most of us don't know the opening game, we have an idea of how the pieces move, what the goal of the game is, and so forth. Long ago it was the same with bridge, but not so much any more. This level of "general knowledge" means that people will be mildly interested if some big chess event occurs (i.e. some player from their country beats the world champ) whereas people are less interested in a bridge event (i.e. their country wins bermuda bowl). Teaching bridge in schools probably helps with this problem in the long run, although that also is difficult to motivate sometimes because of reasons 2 and 3.

 

2. Chess has the image of a game "played by smart people." Most parents want their kids to be smart, so they encourage their kids to play chess even if they're not really into the game themselves. Bridge has the image of a game "played by old people" and no one wants their kids to be old. Changing this image is likely to be pretty difficult. Publicizing some of the younger bridge stars might help, but even this can be tricky (too many HS/college drop-outs playing pro). This is nothing against the young bridge pros (some of whom are quite nice people) but one has to acknowledge that they are not exactly the role models for which parents aspire for their young children.

 

3. Chess has consistently targeted the kids who are most likely to be interested. These are the gifted/talented students and the students who like board games in general (i.e. the nerds and the geeks -- and I acknowledge having been a member of both groups :unsure:). Bridge has refused to do anything like this, persisting in the idea that everyone/anyone will like bridge. While that attitude is admirable in some ways, it seems rather naive. If we look at the set of young bridge players who actually play the duplicate game, they basically come from three groups. These are the two groups mentioned above (the smart kids and the "gamers") plus a group of kids who have parents/grandparents who are really into the duplicate game. The "random" kids who learn bridge in school programs don't really start playing in tournaments to any great degree (with the small number of exceptions usually falling into the three groups described). With this in mind, bridge should be taught in the top math and science schools, advertised in gaming conventions/magazines, and so forth. But I don't see this kind of approach being pursued.

[fred]

For a person who is just barely familiar with the game, 1♣ meaning 3+ and 2♣ being strong artificial and 2♦ being a weak 2 in either major are all equally weird. 

This is an important point that I think a lot of people miss.

 

IMO this is the main reason why you shouldn't teach brand new players anything at all about bidding until after they get the hang of playing the cards.

 

If you try to teach brand new players *any* bidding system, no matter how simple you try to make it, you might as well be teaching them to play Fizzbin (do a web search if you don't know what that means). A significant % of brand new players will quickly get confused and lose interest as a result.

 

When the time comes to teach the not-quite-brand-new player about bidding, IMO the bidding "system" you teach should be SUPER-simple. For example, teaching 5-card majors (or 4-card majors with 3-card minors) is probably wrong. Same goes for teaching weak 2-bids. Introducing *any* artificial bids to these people is probably foolish, assuming the goal is maximizing player retention.

 

In other words, take a page (or all the pages) out of Goren's book. I am sure system (or lack thereof) was not the only reason that Goren was so successful, but I do think it was one of the major reasons. It worked for Goren and, if anything can work now, I suspect a Goren-like approach is the way to go.

 

For those players who remain interested in bridge and who are intrigued by the possibility of more sophisticated bidding methods, there will be plenty of time for them to learn.

 

I thought Lescor's post in the RGB thread was very good. IMO Blubaugh should be ignored on all matters relating to ACBL - he is obviously grinding an axe. Too bad because, if he could remain objective, I suspect a lot more of what he has to offer would have value.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

I have my doubts about this "system makes bridge unpopular" viewpoint. Keep in mind:

 

(1) Even with no bidding at all, bridge is far more complicated than poker.

 

(2) Back when bridge was super-popular, bidding was already far from simple.

 

(3) In the countries where bridge is doing relatively well among young people (i.e. Netherlands, China), bidding is not exactly simple and regulations about conventions are more permissive than in the USA.

 

(4) Attempts to run "simple system" games (including individual events) have generally been a dismal failure.

 

(5) The bidding is actually something unusual about bridge which does draw people who like to experiment to the game. There is not a lot of room for experimentation in chess (for example) whereas even an intermediate player can invent his own bridge convention (and even get some good results from it).

 

With that said, I agree that teaching bridge is best done by focusing on card play for the first few lessons.

[Mosene]

I agree completely with Fred.

 

I grew up playing Spades and Hearts etc... So the idea of taking tricks with high cards, and trump were all well established and were the things that attracted me to bridge. The bidding was secondary - and for me - still is. The play of the cards is what is most fun for me. (maybe my bidding shows it).

 

Bidding is really something of a different skill set (although to bid well you must understand how to play hands). It is about conveying and listening to different information. It is a language. That is not what will attract most people to bridge (I suspect). Although some people on this forum clearly love bridge bidding theory :unsure: .

[blackshoe]

Ron Klinger had a pretty good idea, published in some of his books as "From Whist to Bridge", which doesn't introduce bidding for several lessons — and then takes a couple of lessons to get into actual bidding as we know it. It concentrates on play and hand evaluation at first, with no trumps, then introduces the trump concept, and so on. The ACBL's "minibridge" is a similar concept, I think.

 

If I were teaching beginners, I'd start with that. Then there are a couple of "simple" systems one could try. Old style Goren is one, and probably best suited for Norte Americanos. Old style Acol is another. But I'm not sure that teaching the bare rudiments of a system like that to beginners, and then setting them loose in the world of duplicate, where they'll see a lot of things, but rarely the system they were taught, is a good idea. I'd be tempted to teach "how to build a bidding system". I think younger players would respond to that, but most people who take up bridge classes around here don't fit that mold, and they may not respond to it as well. "Just tell me what to bid with this hand" comes to mind. Besides, I'm not sure I'm well enough informed on that subject to teach it well. :unsure:

 

OTOH, my understanding is that in China (and Taiwan), and possibly other places, the system of choice to teach beginners is Precision, and they seem to take to it well. I'm not sure what to make of that.

[jtfanclub]

OTOH, my understanding is that in China (and Taiwan), and possibly other places, the system of choice to teach beginners is Precision, and they seem to take to it well. I'm not sure what to make of that.

It's very easy to make an absolute system system in Precision. Give me

 

-the number of HCP

-Whether the hand is balanced or unbalanced

-The longest suits(s) and their length

 

And I can tell you the opening you should make, the response you should make if your partner opens, etc. At least at first, there's no hand evaluation or worrying about rebid issues, no new minor forcing or suchlike. If you leave out the slam tries, you can fit the whole thing on an index card, give it to a beginner, and they can learn and play it in a day (with the index card as a reference, of course).

 

I'm not saying the system is going to win the Spingold any time soon, but that little card makes it really easy to bid.

[brianshark]

I had a flick through the original post on the rec.games thread. I disagree with most of what has been said. System regulations are meaningless to new players. Masterpoints are meaningless to new players. Lowering fees is pointless. (If anything increasing fees to increase advertisable prizes would be better.)

 

Here's what I think we need:

 

1. Advertise, advertise, advertise. Ads for lessons and local tourneys should appear in local media, such as newspapers, radio, bulletin boards, etc.

 

2. Publicise exploits of young players in said ads and media, especially when it involves them travelling overseas to represent their country, or winning major competitions for example.

 

3. Teach it properly. That means: A) How to play cards well. B) How to judge the best contract based on hand-evaluation of your hand and your expectation of what partner has. Once these two are well taught, introducing a basic system to them will mean so much more to a new player.

 

In my opinion, it would be better to have 4 beginners sit down at a table, bid and play hands without telling them anything about what bids should mean. They will have plenty of fun, and after a good few games, they will yearn for more structure to what their bids should mean, and tips and tricks on how they should play and defend a hand.

[benlessard]

Go is very popular in Japan, Korea and China. Shogi is very popular in Japan and is starting to be popular in China. I consider shogi to be as tough as chess & bridge put together and consider GO to be nearly twice tougher then shogi. Even strongs amateurs players will sometimes have no clue of what is happening in a professionnals games. So the overall complexity is not a big drawback to a game popularity.

 

The starting complexity (rules and knowledge essentials to start playing) can be a drawback to learning a game. Go rules are very simple but shogi rules are quite tougher then western chess Yet ive heard that in Japan close to 50% of teenages girls own a shogi board (for western chess its surely less then 5%) .

 

When we looked at video games/board games today they are very complex in terms of controls, specials rules and tricks yet it doesnt stop them from being populars with younger folks.

 

Starting complexity can be overcome as long as there is a way to start slow. In bridge its easy you just have to play whist.. and start slowly with some low level bidding.

 

The main reason why some activities are populars and some not is exposure. It is as simple as that. Any activities can become popular quickly if it get "good" exposure.

 

Lets face it bridge has a pretty poor exposure and the fact that we play in specifics clubs and hotel instead of public places doesnt help. The chance of seeing a b%$^job in a public place is greater then seeing a bridge table and 4 bidding boxes.

 

The first time I saw bidding boxes is when a french tarot players and friends decided that we should try bridge and there was a club near his place. Even in old movie, bridge is showned as a way to socialize not as a true activity. Even the bridge column in the papers arent really a good exposure, because most non-players dont look or try to solve the problem.

[kenrexford]

It is not always necessary for marketing to draw the sale. Sometimes, market provides credibility and image, allowing someone who wants to buy to not feel bad doing so. Sometimes marketing elevates the product importance among one's peers.

 

Bridge sometimes suffers from the idea that it is an old-person game. When people actually learn to play, they are sometimes amazed not just by the game in its own right but also in how wrong their assumptions of the game were.

 

Marketing in some manners might not get a person to show up that day at the local club to learn bridge. However, advertising some aspects of the game to the right people at the right time simply for credibility reasons might make bridge more a part of people's minds, and in a good way.

 

A web site that advertises how cool bridge is probably is less effective than a one-page advertisement in the right place advertising aspects of bridge that will seem cool to people. Trying to be in the Olympics is less likely to succeed in that effort.

[JoAnneM]

I certainly agree with Fred about ignoring John Blubaugh. He is out of bridge so why is he concerned about fixing it. And using the ABA as a parallel to ACBL is not justified. They are a small group who are structured entirely differently.

 

ACBL did cut sanction fees to Regionals a few years ago. ACBL did cut table fees to NAP events. Cutting membership fees and NABC fees in half would quickly put them out of business.

 

ACBL needs convention center space to hold their NABC's. Not many smaller cities have that or the hotel space to support 6,000 people descending on them. I too have suggested holding them outside the downtown areas when possible.

 

That said, ACBL has recently hired a new Marketing person. And, I really would like them to once again redo their website and make it actually user friendly.

 

I was really insulted by Blubaugh's remarks about tournament hierarchy lining their pockets via hotel contracts. We have to reserve "room blocks", and we have to put them in our contracts far in advance at a set price. Those room blocks usually expire a few weeks before the tournament so if the rooms are not filled the hotel can use them for other events. So if someone waits too long they will have to pay more, or if they use Priceline, etc they might even get a room cheaper than the room block price that we might have negoiated several years before.

 

The Grand Sierra Resort Hotel in Reno will be a good example for the 2010 NABC. We have the same rate contracted ($89) that we had for 2004. However, the Grand Sierra is currently in receivership with their lenders and have been sending out coupons for $39 rooms. I don't know if those will be available during the NABC but if you get one I can assure you that, I, as the Finance Chair am not getting the other $50. Nor have I or anyone I have worked with on a Regional in my District ever received anything from a hotel except maybe a basket of fruit.

 

Lastly I must say the obvious thing. Hobbies are for those who can afford them, and bridge is not really very expensive. Sure when you go to a big tournament you spend some bucks but how many of us go to them regularly? Most people who play ftf go to several sectionals, a few Regionals, and maybe a NABC every few years. And if we decide when to go to one of those tournaments the amount of the playing fee is not going to be the deciding factor. More likely it's going to be does it fit in to my schedule and do I have partners.

[TimG]

And using the ABA as a parallel to ACBL is not justified.  They are a small group who are structured entirely differently.

If they are structured differently and it works better than the ACBL structure, why not look at their structure and see if it would work for ACBL? It really doesn't seem like something to dismiss out of hand.

I was really insulted by Blubaugh's remarks about tournament hierarchy lining their pockets via hotel contracts.

There is a history of this. Things like tournament organizers getting kickbacks from the hotel that go into an individual's pockets rather than to the bridge organization. Blubaugh has probably been witness to more of it than most of us because for a while he was on the inside.

 

I am not a Blubaugh apologist (though I definitely have more sympathy for him than many do), but prior bad acts (whether the allegations against him are true or false) do not automatically mean that all of his ideas are without merit.

[olegru]

A significant % of brand new players will quickly get confused and lose interest as a result.

Before player will lose interest in something he needs at least get interested in it :unsure:

Should we really care about a percentage of players who will give up with game because they find it too complicated? My feelings that early or later they will give up anyway.

 

I guess the primary concern should be to do not lose people who can give up with game not because they found it difficult, but because they found it boring. We need to cought once who just tried game and make them interested into it.

 

I am trying to recall what did I enjoined in bridge the most in my bridge babyhood, before I actually understand something in the game.

Here is the list:

1. Developing my own bidding homemade systems and conventions. To be honest all my ideas that time were extremely strange, stupid and not playable at all, but I felt creative and enjoyed it.

2. Discussing with my partner what went wrong on the board just played. I was not able to discuss them after tournament – beginners forget boards very fast.

3. Bluffs, of cause. Easiest way for beginners to oversmart an experienced player. And how funny it was! Especially if your baby bluff hurt some of the best players in the country. It brings us to the next point.

4. Playing against the very best. When and where I started to play bridge the stars were in the clubs all the times. And there were no tournaments for 99ers. Not like I could see the difference between the champions’ game and game of average players, but it was a real pleasure to say “I played against the country champions and smash them in one board.” Who cares that I got zeros in other boards in the round and “smash” actually was only ave+.

5. Prizes. Not like I really had chances to get them, but I did not know about it. Bright beginners have tendencies to overestimate own level. By the time I understand how weak player am I, I already got caught by the game.

6. Oh, almost forgot. “Join the club” feelings.

 

Now I am turning on my imagination and trying to see that would happened if I would start to play bridge in ACBL land today.

 

1. Forget about creating the new convention, you can not use them.

2. Please continue, you will discuss boards later.

3. Director!

4. How often would you see the famous players in the regular club games? At least in NY it is not happened very often.

5. Money prizes for first, second and third place? Ha-ha.

6. Young player came to the bridge club and looked around. Does it looks like a community he wants to belong?

[jtfanclub]

The issues specific to the ACBL seem to me to be:

 

1. Getting people into clubs. From my limited experience, that's the big thing. Once you have them in for a couple of lessons, they're hooked.

 

2. Bullying by established people in the clubs. I don't see how the ACBL can do much other than what's already been done. It's really up to the clubs to control their own members.

 

3. People leaving as soon as they make Life Master. No, I don't think increasing the requirements to become Life Master was the way to solve this. With no cash prizes, few trophies and "make your own system" actively discouraged, why should people want to stay around after making Life Master? For some worthless masterpoints? Blah.

[fred]

A significant % of brand new players will quickly get confused and lose interest as a result.

Before player will lose interest in something he needs at least get interested in it :unsure:

Should we really care about a percentage of players who will give up with game because they find it too complicated? My feelings that early or later they will give up anyway.

By "brand new players" I mean people who either know nothing about bridge or who are just learning the (very) basics.

 

These people will see the introduction of any bidding system as they would see lessons in Fizzbin. There is no case for teaching them something that they are not going to understand. There is a strong case for NOT teaching them something they are not going to understand - most people don't like things that are totally confusing.

 

I disagree with your assertion that these people will give up the game anyways because they find it too complicated. Many of them won't find it too complicated if they are taught the game in a sensible way. Here is an extreme example of something that is not sensible:

 

A particular teaching program that pervaded ACBL for a while apparently used something like the following in one of its early "hands on" lessons for (very) new players: Your partner opens 1NT showing to 15-17 HCP and a balanced hand. Your RHO overcalls with 2C - the Cappelletti Convention showing blah blah blah. Here is your hand: blah. What do you bid?

 

I doubt that you had much appreciation for most of the 6 things you listed about why you were attracted to bridge during (say) the first month of your experience as a player. It is players of this experience level I have been referring to. If you really claim that you liked inventing conventions during this time then of course I will believe you, but if so I think your experience is very far from typical. It would thus be a mistake to draw any conclusions about the general population as a result of your experience.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

Most (younger) people don't know bridge. Some might have heard rumors about it. Around here there is a prejudice that bridge is only played by rich old ladies during teatime.

Chess has an image of being an intellectual challenge, that is attractive.

 

So what we need is a better public image of bridge. Bridge is:

- an intellectual game,

- it helps you to develope you mathematical scills,

- it supports team spirit,

- it trains you to evaluate risks and make fast decisions.

It is a perfect preparation for management skills.

Promote that most bridge players are successful people like: manager, IT-people, layers and scientists. Teach your kids bridge and they have better chances to be successful.

[karlson]

I can echo Olegru's comment. Inventing (now absurd) conventions was definitely my favorite part of learning the game. I think Fred is significantly underestimating this aspect, especially if the game is taught to smart young kids, who have some experience with hearts or spades.

 

I think if you're dealing with players who have never played trick taking games at all, then you should just start with whist or minibridge or spades before trying to explain bridge. I guess this is similar to what Fred has in mind.

[Echognome]

I think the most fun for new players is getting to sit down and actually play. Just teach them a rudimentary system and get them playing cards. Sitting there and studying a system before you actually can see why it is important is boring. That is not to say that making things up should be stifled, but rather it should come with need.

 

As several others, I came into bridge knowing hearts and spades, and I learned playing a Chicago game with people playing 1950s style system. I learned the basics of the system in very little time and could spend time just playing and enjoying the game before learning the finer aspects.

[JLOL]

I was realllly into hearts and spades before I played bridge (and while I was just learning I was still more serious about those games). Learning bridge from scratch is overwhelming I'm sure, but if you've played spades bridge is not nearly as foreign. I would say probably a third of the kids my age and even younger know how to play spades in USA. We played sometimes at school. There are also thousands of people playing on yahoo all the time, most of them are probably teenagers. I have said this for a while but I would love to see some way to tap into that market since it is perfect. Every time Ive taken a spades friend from yahoo to OKB or BBO they have enjoyed bridge. A few still play.

 

For those who don't know what spades is, it is a game where spades is always trumps and you start by bidding however many tricks you think you can take with spades as trumps (so you learn hand evaluation, the power of long trumps and shape, etc). You have a partner who does the same, then your partnership tries to make the total number of tricks that you bid. There is a huge penalty for going set. The card play is the same as bridge and is a trick taking game, the only difference is there's no dummy. I mean it's absolutely perfect.

 

The other thing I think is important is sponsorship. I know it can be very hard to get sponsors, and I would have no idea how to do it, but I know that its happened sometimes here, and happens more frequently in other countries. As far as I know the people working on getting sponsors are volunteers. I think this should be a salaried full time job with at least 1 person aggressively persuing it. Sponsorship could really help bridge in so many ways.

[JLOL]

As far as image goes, if you want to appeal to the true game players (of which there are a lot) the fact that bridge is the most complex and tough card game in the world needs to be actively promoted. This isn't even really disputed, even the poker players who don't play bridge but have heard about it just automatically concede this point lol. Playing the toughest card game would really appeal to a lot of gamer types.

 

To appeal to the average person the fact that big money can be involved in bridge (high stakes rubber bridge, the cavendish, top professionals) should be promoted. People don't know that you can make a lot of money playing bridge. Even if 99.99% are unlikely to ever do so, that's the kind of thing that gets people interested in some games and sports in the beginning. The fact that there are world championships and highly competitive tournaments with great rivalries and upsets and drama should also be promoted. Think about Bobby Fischer, why he made chess way more popular. There has been a great Italy/USA rivalry for a while, some press about that woulda been good etc.

 

Also pictures of any Swedish girl world champions doesn't hurt :)

[olegru]

By "brand new players" I mean people who either know nothing about bridge or who are just learning the (very) basics.

These people will see the introduction of any bidding system as they would see lessons in Fizzbin. There is no case for teaching them something that they are not going to understand. There is a strong case for NOT teaching them something they are not going to understand - most people don't like things that are totally confusing.

Completely agree!

People need to be taught when they feel they need lessons. Lets them make own mistakes, understand why do they need the biding system and only after it gave them bidding lessons. But strict ACBL system policy makes beginners think that bidding system is the part of the game rules. Very complicated and boring part :D

 

I doubt that you had much appreciation for most of the 6 things you listed about why you were attracted to bridge during (say) the first month of your experience as a player. It is players of this experience level I have been referring to. If you really claim that you liked inventing conventions during this time then of course I will believe you, but if so I think your experience is very far from typical.

:) It is really not typical for ACBL land. You probably will find it hard to believe how many different systems and conventions had been played in Moscow bridge club in beginning of 1990s. Anybody play whatever they want. Relay systems, strong pass system… 2 diamonds opening 5+5 in random suits, 2 hearts opening with week spades or strong 5+5 in minors, 2 spades opening with more than 6 spades or less then 2 spades and so on so forth.

In the environment where everybody playing something “their own” idea to create something “your own and better then everybody” is a very natural. “Let’s, partner, open 1 heart to show week hands with spades or strong hands with hearts and see what happened.” It took me several months to understand that bidding is not just separated bids, that making mess during the bidding is not the way to became a winning player and that the well developed by experts systems are a very useful tool to study and use.

 

It would thus be a mistake to draw any conclusions about the general population as a result of your experience.

Of cause you are right. There is no guaranty that something worked well for me and my friends will work equally well for everybody. But if current policy is not successful to ensure future of our game maybe it is a good idea to look at individuals experiences and re-think if policy better to be changed or not.