Young players & regulations

[qwery_hi]

While I still doubt that system regulation (or lack thereof) has any substantial effect on recruitment of new players, I do think that the lack of clearcut rules combined with erratic (and sometimes seemingly capricious) enforcement of the rules has some effect.

 

The most obvious example is acbl's "zero tolerance" policy which is enforced very rarely. Facing players who are rude or even possibly cheaters does drive people away from duplicate. For a variety of reasons, younger players often seem to get the short end here.

 

I know that a series of awful incidents with directing staff (from very bad rulings to things that border on harrassment) have caused me to basically quit attending local sectionals. While this is far from "quitting bridge" it does lose attendence for the league, especially since I am coaching a local university team and they are much more likely to play local tournaments if I encourage them and help arrange teams and transport.

 

Looking at cases like hrothgar, lack of coherent rules and a fair and clear process play as much role as "system regulation." I can think of many other examples of people who quit duplicate or cut way down on their play due to run-ins with directors or seeming unfairness of the way rules are enforced.

 

Fred is right about "getting people in the door" being critical, but there are also a lot of people who know the basics but never make the leap to duplicate. Often "intimidation" seems to play a role here. Clearer rules and explanations, plus more egalitarian enforcement, can help here.

I am another of those young players who has given up serious bridge in favor of poker. The main attraction of poker is that it has no rules that I consider to be arbitrary or stupid.

 

(Alert - some boring, ranting stuff follows)

I had no problem getting attracted to bridge, since I already played chess from when I was 8 and go and strategic board games from 12. Unfortunately, growing up in India offered few opportunities for bridge, but I picked it up when I arrived in the US when I was 25. Enjoyed playing bridge for 3 years, this is proof for me that newcomers don't bother much with system regulations and attracting newcomers has little to do with system regulations.

 

The problem is this - if all systems were allowed, even if only at the highest levels of bridge, I would be motivated to try to improve and try to play at the highest level. However, even if at National level open event, so many arbitrary restrictions apply, there is little motivation for me to try to play in them. This is even more true at the lower levels of the game, where the number of restrictions increase rapidly.

 

IMO, Marston is self-serving for saying that system regulations effect entry of younger players, and Fred, Meckstroth, Chip, all of the current elite of bridge who are in favor of current restrictions at National level and International level events are equally self-serving.

[Fluffy]

What I don't understand is why don't people try something in between, getting the clubs to allow any methods 1 day a week doesn't seem very hard, and if it might get some people into the game that's great. Let the wild method players play gainst each other and have some laughs. In reality I believe not many club players will notice a big difference.

 

Then you can put also a couple low level/mid level tournaments a year with no restrictions and see what happens.

[helene_t]

Gonzalo, the problem is that few directors, let alone players, are able to cope with a single set of regulations. Nobody cares about system regulations so nobody find it worthwhile to find out where to read about regulations, how to read them, let alone learning the regulations by heart.

 

Given that one set of system regulations is already beyond reach for most, multiple sets of system regulations for different events would be completely unrealistic.

 

Besides, you can't expect pairs that play in multiple events to adjust their methods accordingly: At our club, we could in principle play weak-only multi on thursday, multi with strong options on friday, and no multi on monday. But nobody knows that. As it happens, few if any players at our local club would want to play any restricted methods anyway, but what would happen if some popular methods were allowed at some evenings only would be either that people would stop playing the methods at all (you don't bother making agreements about a convention that you can't play throughout), or people would just play it throughout until someone stopped them. Which probably would never happen.

[blackshoe]

When I first started playing here in Rochester, I met a guy who wanted to play Precision. Since at the time I knew nothing about system regulations, I asked the club owner if that was okay. He said "you can play anything you want." More recently, he told me that I could play the Dynamic NT (which is GCC legal) provided I treated it as if it were a Mid-Chart convention, pre-alerted it, and provided a written defense to opponents. So apparently his first statement wasn't entirely true. The Dynamic NT, btw, was banned in another club after my partner and I had been playing it there for three months (with no complaints to us about it, or director calls, in all that time). In practice, club owners/directors around here seem to operate on the principle that they will approve or disapprove conventions on an individual, at the time, basis. But it doesn't seem to matter — I haven't heard anyone else complain that they can't play their pet convention. People don't seem to think of playing Mid-Chart or higher conventions. OTOH, many of them seem to have difficulty figuring out how to play correctly the simple stuff they do play . :angry:

[blackshoe]

In ACBL terms, one might hope that a club would allow Mid-Chart conventions once in a while. One would hope that a club would not restrict agreements to less than the General Convention Chart, even though there are some things on that chart that are rarely seen (Dynamic NT being one such).

 

I agree with Helene that people don't really bother learning the regulations — they just play stuff that "everybody" plays, and don't worry about the regs (and frequently they don't know or play the whole convention/system of conventions (Bergen Raises, for example) just the bits they've seen other people play.

 

I once had this come up: playing with a then-regular, beginner level partner, we were NS when EW arrived at the table discussing this convention they used, of which my partner had never previously heard. 'What's that called?' asked partner. 'Sandwich NT', they replied. The only detail of the convention that she heard was that a bid of 1NT showed the two unbid suits, after opponents had bid the other two. So, on the very first board, RHO opens, I pass, LHO bids a new suit, partner gets this look on her face, and bids 1NT. 'Alert!' says I. 'Explain please', says RHO. 'We haven't discussed it, much less agreed it, but I'd bet she has the other two suits. She did - 4-4, with a scattered 8 count. I don't remember the result, but it wasn't good. She never bid it again. :angry:

[shevek]

As someone who earns all his income from bridge - club management, directing, teaching, writing - I have a few observations.

 

Occasionally, people ring up to book into beginner classes and ask "How old are the people in the class" or even "Are there some men in the class?"

 

Yes, you can attract youngish professional people to classes but they come with the aim of learning a new skill and don't envisage playing every Tuesday night for 30 years. By and large, night time players are empty nesters, wives of late-working businessmen, gays, random social outcasts plus the seniors who are prepared to venture out at night.

 

Daytime bridge in Sydney appears to be booming, though it's 80%+ female and average age pushing 70. The bell curve is skewed heavily to the right.

 

Here's a statement worth assessing ....

"The best way to encourage younger people to play is to discourage older people." Discuss.

Or at least funelling the seniors into daytime bridge.

 

How can this be achieved?

Lifting system restrictions might "help" in a very small way.

Bridgepads/mates appeal to younger = technologically aware.

Likewise internet results, TV screens scrolling running scores.

Golf-style Ratings rather than masterpoints, which reward longevity.

 

One club where I work recently spent $70k on a lift for their less mobile. Bad move, if the idea is to attract youth. Better for the club to be on the third floor with stair only access. Get the picture?

 

More 2-bd movements, more Howells, more individuals, more prizemoney!

 

Higher table fees would help. It can cost $15 for a game in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs. That weeds out a few pensioners. Then you have a bar, espresso, starts to sound like a fun night out.

[peachy]

Gonzalo, the problem is that few directors, let alone players, are able to cope with a single set of regulations. Nobody cares about system regulations so nobody find it worthwhile to find out where to read about regulations, how to read them, let alone learning the regulations by heart.

 

Given that one set of system regulations is already beyond reach for most, multiple sets of system regulations for different events would be completely unrealistic.

 

Besides, you can't expect pairs that play in multiple events to adjust their methods accordingly: At our club, we could in principle play weak-only multi on thursday, multi with strong options on friday, and no multi on monday. But nobody knows that. As it happens, few if any players at our local club would want to play any restricted methods anyway, but what would happen if some popular methods were allowed at some evenings only would be either that people would stop playing the methods at all (you don't bother making agreements about a convention that you can't play throughout), or people would just play it throughout until someone stopped them. Which probably would never happen.

Pairs are expected to adjust their methods within a single event/session, in Australia. See "Protected Pairs" http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFSystemRegs09.pdf . I just happened to read this regulation and found it interesting.

[Rossoneri]

Higher table fees would help. It can cost $15 for a game in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs. That weeds out a few pensioners. Then you have a bar, espresso, starts to sound like a fun night out.

Not going to attract students with this I believe :lol:

 

Still like Young Chelsea's policy of letting full time students have free games.

[the hog]

I have often argued that there should be two tier events. Anything goes and restricted. You could even have restricted world championships if you wanted to, so sponsors would not have to worry about odious impossible to defend bids like the multi. Why not?

[awm]

I have often argued that there should be two tier events. Anything goes and restricted. You could even have restricted world championships if you wanted to, so sponsors would not have to worry about odious impossible to defend bids like the multi. Why not?

I'd be pretty uninterested in playing either of these events.

 

My basic belief is that as long as I'm trying to reach a good contract for my side (making or sacrifice), pretty much any methods should be allowed. So I'm not that interested in playing "simple system" or "restricted methods" events where things are banned.

 

But at the same time, I believe there's a class of methods that are not based on trying to reach a good contract for my side, but rather are based on forcing everyone at the table to play a guessing game. Such things could easily be good tactics for weaker pairs playing against good pairs, since they usually give a little edge to the people who use them (more "used to" it, perhaps some undisclosed "style" tendencies, etc) and even a 50/50 top/bottom shot is a good deal when a weak pair plays against a good pair. But I don't think these types of methods really add to the game, and am not particularly interested in playing them or playing against them.

 

Perhaps the line is somewhat arbitrary; maybe one even thinks it's a preference for the "methods I like to play" and wanting to ban those I don't like. But I think there is a substantial difference between methods which are designed to show good hands and produce a sequence to an accurate contract... versus methods which show lousy hands with no known suit and are designed to up the level of the bidding without giving either side much of an idea which suit to play in or who can make what.

 

With that said, I do feel that there is overregulation of methods in ACBL and some other places, and that bids which show an average hand or better and/or show substantial length in a known suit should be permitted in serious events. But I'm not clamoring for "suction preempts" or "2♥ multi" and I do believe there is a difference between this and things like game-forcing relay systems or constructive transfer openings which are designed to find good contracts for the bidding side.

[the hog]

snipped

 

My basic belief is that as long as I'm trying to reach a good contract for my side (making or sacrifice), pretty much any methods should be allowed. So I'm not that interested in playing "simple system" or "restricted methods" events where things are banned.

 

But at the same time, I believe there's a class of methods that are not based on trying to reach a good contract for my side, but rather are based on forcing everyone at the table to play a guessing game. Such things could easily be good tactics for weaker pairs playing against good pairs, since they usually give a little edge to the people who use them (more "used to" it, perhaps some undisclosed "style" tendencies, etc) and even a 50/50 top/bottom shot is a good deal when a weak pair plays against a good pair. But I don't think these types of methods really add to the game, and am not particularly interested in playing them or playing against them.

snipped

That is where we differ Adam. I strongly believe that making life difficult for the opponents and hindering them from finding their best contract is an integral part of the game. I will ignore your comment about about "Undisclodes style tendencies", as in my experience, most players of more arcane methods are far more likely to engage in full disclosure than others. How often have I heard the phrase, "Its just bridge"?

 

Adam, I assume you play pre emptive bids and i assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you play or at least have played, weak jump overcalls. Both of these bids are attempts to make life difficult for the opponents and to some extent to induce a guessing game. So bsed on your quote above, I guess you don't believe these "really add to the game"? What about psyches? Do they add to the game? Would you ban weak jo and pre empts?

 

Finally to respond to your comment "I woould not be interested...." Why would you not be interested to play in a restricted event? As I said, you could even have National and International restricted events. Just because you are not interested, this does not mean others aren't. I am nt interested in playing in events where methods I enjoy are restricted. Why should you get what you want and I NOT get what I enjoy?

Ron

[awm]

I don't really care if there are events I'm not interested in playing. In fact there are many such events (play-through swiss teams at regionals are a prime example). It doesn't bother me.

 

But a lot of people seem to think that somehow splitting the events between "anything goes" and "simple system" will solve a problem. This ignores the fact that there are quite a few people like me who enjoy having good agreements with partner and perhaps playing slightly non-standard constructive methods, but don't enjoy playing against (or employing ourselves) a vast array of preemptive "fert" bids which carry little information about shape except "my hand is garbage, good luck guessing whether to bid/double/pass it out."

 

I think there is a difference between a bid that says "I have a long spade suit and a bad hand" and a bid that says "I have a bad hand with a long spade suit, or maybe short spades with both red suits, or pretty much any weak three-suiter... and partner will normally just pass my bid and hope for the best unless he has a strong hand, so good luck guessing!" The former is obstructive but describes the hand and is not too hard to defend (regardless of whether the bid is spades or some transfer to spades) whereas the latter seems very randomizing and annoying to play against.

[Mbodell]

What I don't understand is why don't people try something in between, getting the clubs to allow any methods 1 day a week doesn't seem very hard, and if it might get some people into the game that's great. Let the wild method players play gainst each other and have some laughs. In reality I believe not many club players will notice a big difference.

 

Then you can put also a couple low level/mid level tournaments a year with no restrictions and see what happens.

We have that here. Most days at the local club it is Mid chart, but once a week it is super chart.

 

Not surprisingly, we have a lot of young people who play bridge (at least by bridge standards).

 

It is hard to keep multiple cards. For a while I was keeping 4 cards with one partner based on mid chart or not and if we could play multi or not.

 

When we play sectionals and regionals though it is often GCC only.

[akhare]

As other have pointed out, there are two separate issues here. Clearly, there's no evidence to support Marston's conjecture that system regulations are directly related to the decline of bridge.

 

At the same time, many people, including myself have been very frustrated at the lack of transparency about the proceedings of ACBL C&C and arbitrary regulations of conventions, which, at the outset can certainly appear to be designed to serve the interests of the high and mighty.

 

Indeed, there have been occasions on which I have considered letting my ACBL membership (on account of the stupid GCC regulations), but reconsidered because my passion for the game outweights the short sighted considerations of the powers that be.

 

Others in my situation may not be that patient though and it wouldn't surprise me if the regulations caused some players to quit in disgust...

[hotShot]

There are 2 issues to discuss:

 

1) Why are "young" people not interested in learning bridge? How do we get their interest?

 

2) Does system regulation drive (young) player away from bridge.

 

 

ad 1) Bridge has a bad image (at least around here). Most people (here) only read about Bridge in some Agatha Christie novel. Their impression is that is a boring game for old people to waste time.

 

Chess has done better advertising, being a chess player has a positive image.

 

ad 2) Of cause people like to experiment with the bidding system.

If they can't practice their ideas, they could get frustrated.

 

Offering a regular "all systems allowed" session, could help a lot.

 

But don't we all put to much weight to the bidding system? It's much easier to change your bidding system, than to learn to play/defend well.

Many player know lots of conventions, have an elaborated bidding systems, but lack good judgment, decent declarer play and defense.

[Free]

In the past I've played all sorts of systems: from stone age acol to 5 card Majors, some sort of precision, MOSCITO, forcing pass, and now back to some natural system with some conventions (openings are pretty standard, continuations are not). This evolution because I wanted to experiment, had a lot of fun, but eventually I just got tired of the prealterting, explaining every call,... Also, competitive auctions were not always as easy to handle.

 

I've played in a club which said we could play every method we wanted. They were actually proud about this! Normally WBF color codes are used to determine which systems are allowed (which I think is a very good method). In fact, all systems were allowed but nobody played a strong pass for example. One night me and my partner had decided to play a random 2♣ opening, a BSC which shows 0-5HCP with any possible distribution. It came up 4 times! Every opponent complained about this, we got questions to what method it was exactly (so they could determine what to do with it), but they couldn't forbid us to play this that evening. A few weeks later there were system restrictions that BSC's and HUM's were no longer allowed.

 

In my opinion banning methods is definitely a matter of self preservation. Moreover it's easy because a new method comes from 1 person/pair, while opinions about it come from thousands of people. Convincing someone that a convention should be forbidden, for whatever reason, is simple. Call it "destructive" and people get scared. "People will leave the club". Etc. And if that doesn't help, just say it's "impossible to defend against" (example transfer openings)...

 

I can understand Adam's view on systems. There is a good solution: WBF color codes. Red systems basically allow you to play pretty much everything, with a few exceptions. Not specific exceptions (like "pass promisses 12HCP or more is not allowed"), but general rules to describe which category your method belongs to. The rules are transparent and clear, so there's no room for discussion. If you develop a new method, you can determine the color code yourself and it can be played if the color is allowed. There are no people who can disallow a certain method because they think it's too hard to defend against. There's no need to approve it. Over here in Belgium, every tournament allows Green, Blue and Red systems. People accept this, because BSC's can be very difficult to defend against, and HUM's usually contain some destructive methods.

 

Personally I don't think system regulations are the cause of young people staying away from the game, but it could be a reason they quit the game after some years. When you first learn the game, you're not interested in playing crazy methods, because you haven't accuired the normal skills yet. However, when you're getting better and play more hands, you get in touch with all sorts of methods, so you want to experiment yourself. Also you get more problem hands. If you find a perfect solution but you're not allowed to play it, it's probably very frustrating.

 

Beginners should be protected for this and play among themselves for a while (so they can learn the basics), but after a while they should be left alone to experiment imo.

 

We have another thread comparing declarer play from for example the blue team with current top players. I think pretty much everyone can agree that declarer play may have improved slightly (although not much) or has stayed the same, but the blue team would be slaughtered because of better bidding systems. On the other hand, some authorizations seem to want to stop all new developments in bidding systems.

[pooltuna]

There are 2 issues to discuss:

 

1) Why are "young" people not interested in learning bridge? How do we get their interest?

 

2) Does system regulation drive (young) player away from bridge.

 

 

ad 1) Bridge has a bad image (at least around here). Most people (here) only read about Bridge in some Agatha Christie novel. Their impression is that is a boring game for old people to waste time.

 

Chess has done better advertising, being a chess player has a positive image.

 

ad 2) Of cause people like to experiment with the bidding system.

If they can't practice their ideas, they could get frustrated.

 

Offering a regular "all systems allowed" session, could help a lot.

 

But don't we all put to much weight to the bidding system? It's much easier to change your bidding system, than to learn to play/defend well.

Many player know lots of conventions, have an elaborated bidding systems, but lack good judgment, decent declarer play and defense.

Young people are generally not exposed to bridge. After all we play in clubs where passerbys can never see any action even from a distance. Imagine the difference if you were playing a duplicate game in the open area of your local enclosed mall!

 

The second problem is we are not trying hard enough to get into the school system. We probably need to do this in conjuction with the other game groups such as Hearts, Go, Chess, Scrabble, et al. If we are a united front we can be more like the high school football league (American and other) where the schools can complete for local & state level championships. You probably would have to settle for an overall games champion rather than a specific game but where each game would contribute to the overall standing.

[rbforster]

I think pretty much everyone can agree that declarer play may have improved slightly (although not much) or has stayed the same, but the blue team would be slaughtered because of better bidding systems.  On the other hand, some authorizations seem to want to stop all new developments in bidding systems.

Slightly off-topic from Marston, but I think this is a very good point and clearly illustrates the conflicts of interest of those making the rules. I'm not saying they aren't also "trying to do the best for the game", but it's clear they also benefit the most from enforcing the status quo. It's so hard to become a world class declarer and once you're in the top ranks, you'd rather force everyone to play the same system so your advantage is the only one that matters.

[jjbrr]

Ya, anyone who thinks system restrictions are the cause of any meaningful number of young people quitting bridge is completely out of touch with reality. If young people get good enough at the game to have some fundamental understanding of system construction such that the regulations come into play, it seems clear to me that we would consider this a victory in getting young people to play bridge, because, you know, they have to know how to play bridge before they can start going crazy with systems.

 

I share the opinion that bridge in schools, particularly middle school (grades 5-8) and in universities, is the way to get people interested if getting young people interested is possible. Young people have to be introduced to the game before other interests get in the way, and even then it's been my experience that it requires a certain kind of person to stick with the game.

 

Kids these days like results now. They play video games where they shoot villains from the beginning of the game all the way to the end, and each kill is a little victory. Their video game character is always in the action. Sports are the same thing. If you break bridge down in terms of little victories, there are no quick thrills. At the smallest level, you might win a hand every 7 minutes or so, but that's not really enough to keep kids interested, especially considering that making a contract (ie "winning") could still be a hugely losing position.

 

I would argue that comparing bridge clubs in schools to chess clubs in schools is not necessarily best. The nice thing about chess is that you can learn the game in 2 minutes, the learning curve at the beginning is very steep, and there are competitions for young people at the local and state levels not infrequently. I learned at the beginning of 5th grade when a friend taught me during lunch break. 2 weeks later I could already beat him, and only a couple months later I was competing in local tournaments, winning trophies, and qualifying for state championships where I won another trophy. While I won't deny that I probably have a better mind for games than most of my peers, the fact that one can learn the game so quickly and be a top-ten competitor at the state level without much effort at all is great for a young person who craves immediate results. But there is a problem with this. How many of those kids who played chess in their middle school chess clubs still play the game competitively 5 years later? 10 years? 50 years? I don't have the slightest clue, because I didn't go to any more competitions once I reached high school (though bridge did get in the way, I still wouldn't have played chess).

 

Additionally, chess has the advantage that the game is easy to learn and to teach, so any average chess player can organize a chess club and teach the kids everything they need to know on their own: stacked pawns aren't great, control the middle of the board, knights are more powerful when they're not on the perimeter, keep your king in front of the pawn you're trying to advance in the endgame. Other than that, the game is an open book and the kids can learn the rest on their own. Bridge teachers require a lot more knowledge and ability to communicate bridge to an audience, especially an audience of 12 year olds.

 

Bridge in its current form is not a whole lot of fun for a young person just starting out. In fact it can be quite frustrating. It's slow and there's a lot to learn and the results are sort of meaningless and don't even give you much sense of accomplishment. Why would any average kid stick with it? Give them lots of reasons to stick with it, whether it be summer bridge camps or lots of local tournaments (speedballs, perhaps?), and they will be more likely to keep it up.

 

Cliffs:

-system restrictions have very little to do with young players at all

-bridge is boring and burdensome to learn

-if you make it interesting, kids will be interested in it, maybe

[nige1]

I think pretty much everyone can agree that declarer play may have improved slightly (although not much) or has stayed the same, but the blue team would be slaughtered because of better bidding systems.  On the other hand, some authorizations seem to want to stop all new developments in bidding systems.

Slightly off-topic from Marston, but I think this is a very good point and clearly illustrates the conflicts of interest of those making the rules.  I'm not saying they aren't also "trying to do the best for the game", but it's clear they also benefit the most from enforcing the status quo.  It's so hard to become a world class declarer and once you're in the top ranks, you'd rather force everyone to play the same system so your advantage is the only one that matters.

Most Bridge players believe their preferred weapons are natural and constructive but opponents just want to use new kinds of poison gas.

 

We started off just bidding our longest suits at an appropriate level. Notrump bids promised at least the semblance of stops. Later we learnt to accept an artificial strong two club opener. When we encountered Standard American minor suit openings, they seemed completely artificial. The British Nottinham Club was almost identical to the later Precision. Hence, the objection to Italian club, French relay, or Polish strong pass systems was hard to understand.

 

It is amusing when, even now, their protagonists defend fit jumps or splinters as "natural". But, presumably, to them, their methods are completely natural. Widespread adoption means that players must believe such methods to be effective, as well as to be fun to play.

 

Now, resistance to change is increasing. It seems a pity that the establishment stifle innovation with rules of ever increasing complexity.

[akhare]

Slightly off-topic from Marston, but I think this is a very good point and clearly illustrates the conflicts of interest of those making the rules.  I'm not saying they aren't also "trying to do the best for the game", but it's clear they also benefit the most from enforcing the status quo.  It's so hard to become a world class declarer and once you're in the top ranks, you'd rather force everyone to play the same system so your advantage is the only one that matters.

 

Yes indeed - good luck getting the C&C "volunteers" to adopt something like what awm suggested (and I am sure we will get a lot of apologists explaining why things ain't broken):

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=38668&st=0#

[billw55]

Bridge in its current form is not a whole lot of fun for a young person just starting out. In fact it can be quite frustrating. It's slow and there's a lot to learn and the results are sort of meaningless and don't even give you much sense of accomplishment. Why would any average kid stick with it? Give them lots of reasons to stick with it, whether it be summer bridge camps or lots of local tournaments (speedballs, perhaps?), and they will be more likely to keep it up.

 

Cliffs:

-system restrictions have very little to do with young players at all

-bridge is boring and burdensome to learn

-if you make it interesting, kids will be interested in it, maybe

I am certainly no expert on how to best teach bridge to kids. But I can certainly agree that one problem is how highly complex the rules are. The score tables alone get blank stares from some adults.

 

I think your comparison to chess shows just how compicated it is. True chess is much simpler - but even chess is not so simple, with six pieces that each move differently, promotion, stalemate, and special case rules like castling, en passant, etc. This is not at all simple for many, perhaps most kids. (I find your statement that it can be learned in 2 minutes frankly preposterous.) That all this feels trivially simple compared to bridge really shows how incomprehensible even following the rules of bridge can be to youngsters, let alone trying to learn play well.

[Rossoneri]

In the past 5 years, there has been a significant increase of students playing bridge in Singapore, to the extent where some local club nights have student players accounting for more than two-thirds or even three-quarters of the players.

 

This is mainly due to an increase in introducing bridge to junior colleges (equivalent to Sixth Form in the UK, Grade 11-12 in the US(?)), mostly as a direct consquence of our local NBO introducing coaching into schools. This is starting to have a knock-on effect onto universities as many of these students continue playing bridge even after their 2 years in school. There is a significant drop-out rate of course (more on that), but there is still a sizeable population even after this.

 

I agree that the main thing going against bridge is the complexity of the rules and play, which is why I think coaching helps a lot as having someone to explain makes it more approachable. Once the players have reached a point where they are competent enough and are already hooked onto the game, most of the hard work is over IMO.

[Mbodell]

The other chess to bridge comparison is you only need 2 people to play chess and you can run a chess tournament with 4 people pretty easily. With bridge you need 4 people just to play at all, and for duplicate you need at least 8. That is a big difference in organization for young people.

 

I used to play in high school with my friends in class (when we were already finished the work and far enough ahead in the material that the teachers would leave us alone) and most often we played hearts because there were only 3 of us, but when there were 4 we played bridge.

[jdonn]

I agree with Fred's point that, whatever you think of system regulation, it's truly ridiculous to claim that issue is the main cause of young people quiting bridge. Ridiculous may not even be a strong enough word.