Young players & regulations

[junyi_zhu]

Whenever I go to a club or tournament where people don't know me, I get asked why I don't teach more of my friends to play bridge. (In reality, most of my friends do, some because I taught them.) They basically want more young people to play bridge, and blame video games/poker etc. I think a big problem is that these people who are after me did not teach their children to play, and the children did not teach their grandchildren.

 

I don't think that system regulation has anything to do with why the majority of people my age do not play bridge. I concede that it may be why some minority quit, but you have to start before you can quit, and I would guess the majority never started.

Agree. IMO, the biggest problem in USA for this game to attract more people is the game format. Basically, you pay entry fee, a lot of entry fee, to ACBL for nothing. Suppose you win some matches, in Poker, you may money, in chess your rate goes up to show your progress, in bridge, you make some master points, which reflect your attendance to this organization and don't reflect your skill level much. Few young people would really go into such kind of nonsense IMO. In Poker, some very young talents can make big money purely from their skill and luck. In Bridge, there is just no way. Even chess has a better format. They actually have a much better rating system which may attract young and talented players. This situation lies in the nature of this game, a partnership game. So it was designed to reward attendance and not to take it too seriously, otherwise, cheating would flow everywhere in this game. Still, IMO, a much better rating system can be devised based on pairs, not individuals. Since it's a partnership game, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say xxx is the best player. Instead, the proper way is xxx and yyy are the best partnership.

[jdonn]

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'm not sure I would (or wouldn't) want to split up into seperate world championships, but in the current climate of system regulation I think it's a very good idea to hold a few 'anything goes' events. I might even play in such an event, even though I believe in some level of restriction.

[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?

I'm not sure I would (or wouldn't) want to split up into seperate world championships, but in the current climate of system regulation I think it's a very good idea to hold a few 'anything goes' events. I might even play in such an event, even though I believe in some level of restriction.

Why not? Surely this would make everyone happy.

[dake50]

As I see it, there is great conflict between the COMPETITORS and the SOLVERS.

COMP wants the contest to be the endall: won regional proves my value.

SOLV wants the problems solved: when is right singleton, helping honor, similar.

 

I'm in the SOLVERS camp. Always and truly.

[helene_t]

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'm not sure I would (or wouldn't) want to split up into seperate world championships, but in the current climate of system regulation I think it's a very good idea to hold a few 'anything goes' events. I might even play in such an event, even though I believe in some level of restriction.

Why not? Surely this would make everyone happy.

It will make TDs unhappy (have to enforce different regulations in different events, and deal with players who bring their Tuesday-evening convention card on Wednesday evening).

 

It will make most of those few players who are aware of the regulations unhappy as they can't play multi themselves (since they want to play the same system throughout) but at the same time they have to prepare a defense against multi (in case some opps do bother to play multiple systems, or only play at the liberal-regulations evenings).

 

It will make club board members unhappy (as they have to waste time on silly discussions about which chart to chose for which events).

 

OK, there will be a tiny few players who have strong preferences for a particular charter and will be happy to restrict their attendance to events with that charter.

[straube]

It seems like people used to learn games like Whist and Bridge so that they could mingle socially. Couples would invite couples over for dinner and Bridge. I remember my folks doing that a lot. Before women started entering the work force, they got together for Bridge once a month or whatever.

 

There were fewer activities and more people that engaged in them.

 

I think people just don't entertain like they used to. We're more likely to stay at home and watch a DVD or play a video game. We don't invite the next door neighbors over any more. We probably have less in common with them than we might have had in years past. We're splintering.

 

The loss of this large reservoir of players has really hurt bridge. Maybe a lot of them didn't play Stayman or takeout doubles, but a few of them bought books or took lessons and a few of them found their way into clubs and tournaments.

 

I just don't see that reservoir of casual players ever coming back.

 

At the same time, Bridge keeps evolving and methods are improving and the play disparity between the kitchen Bridge players and the club players continues to widen. I can't get my folks to take lessons at the local club because 1) they're not competitive and think that the nature of competition is inherently unfriendly and 2) they don't want to learn fancy conventions that their friends won't know or understand.

 

I understand the desire to recruit recent retirees into the game. They (the baby boomers) have time and possibly money and were probably exposed to (likely played) Bridge at some point in their lives. I see two drawbacks. One is that this pool of players (the baby boomers) will come to an end. Two is that if you spend most of your life not playing bridge and try to catch up after retiring, you're not likely to become a very good player.

 

Where I live, our day games are better attended than our evening games and the novice games are becoming more common than our open games. Our novice games are often filled with retired people. Whatever open game I play, I feel like the field is much weaker than it was even ten years ago.

 

So I hope that we can target colleges etc and recruit some young players...not only for bodies but to develop future advanced and expert players.

[awm]

I do think targeting colleges is a good idea.

 

Of the young players I can think of who play at least some tournament bridge (aside from things specifically targeted towards youth players), most of them either picked up the game from parents who are serious duplicate players, or got into the game in college.

 

Perhaps this is changing now through the "bridge in schools" programs and youth NABC? I'm curious as to how such programs have fared in other countries which have run them for longer than the USA (if such exist).

 

It may be worth mentioning that a lot of "baby boomers" actually didn't learn to play bridge as kids. Even though almost all their parents played at least a little social bridge, they didn't seem to teach their kids. My parents (coming up on retirement age now) and the vast majority of their friends have never really played bridge. This is going to make it a lot harder to attract retiring "baby boomers" to the game than it was to attract their parents at retirement age, and I think was one of the points made in VMars's post.

[blackshoe]

It may be worth mentioning that a lot of "baby boomers" actually didn't learn to play bridge as kids. Even though almost all their parents played at least a little social bridge, they didn't seem to teach their kids.

I honestly don't remember whether I learned bridge as a child, or in college. My parents did play it, and I played a lot in college, but I don't remember when I learned it. I do remember reading Five Weeks to Winning Bridge somewhere back there. I'm 63, btw.

[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?

I'm not sure I would (or wouldn't) want to split up into seperate world championships, but in the current climate of system regulation I think it's a very good idea to hold a few 'anything goes' events. I might even play in such an event, even though I believe in some level of restriction.

Why not? Surely this would make everyone happy.

It will make TDs unhappy (have to enforce different regulations in different events, and deal with players who bring their Tuesday-evening convention card on Wednesday evening).

 

It will make most of those few players who are aware of the regulations unhappy as they can't play multi themselves (since they want to play the same system throughout) but at the same time they have to prepare a defense against multi (in case some opps do bother to play multiple systems, or only play at the liberal-regulations evenings).

 

It will make club board members unhappy (as they have to waste time on silly discussions about which chart to chose for which events).

 

OK, there will be a tiny few players who have strong preferences for a particular charter and will be happy to restrict their attendance to events with that charter.

I don't understand your post at all Helene, sorry. Who said anything about different charts, and why would club members be unhappy or even have to be involved in silly discussions? Why would you have to bring 2 different convention cards. I think you misunderstood my proposal -

 

1 Take an event, say the Vanderbilt as an example:

 

You would have 2 levels 1) system restricted, 2) anything goes

You enter the level you want. If you win 1) you are "System restricted Vanderbilt champion,"; if you play in and win the other you are "Anything goes Vanderbilt champion." Same masterpoints and accolades for each.

 

You could extend this concept to World championships. You would have to make sure that you didn't call the restricted event some demeaning name and the anything goes group something like "The real Bermuda Bowl". This way players in the former group could still have their egos intact.

Where is the confusion? All are happy

[jdonn]

All are happy

I hope you don't really believe that would be the case.

[Rossoneri]

I'm curious as to how such programs have fared in other countries which have run them for longer than the USA (if such exist).

Well, I gave a short account on the situation AFAIK currently back in Singapore. Although admittedly, there are a lot less logistical problems doing this in such a small country.

[the hog]

All are happy

I hope you don't really believe that would be the case.

Well Josh, you can never make everyone ecstatic, but at least it would be better than what we have now.

[helene_t]

Who said anything about different charts

Well there would be a restricted and an unrestricted chart. OK, the unrestricted chart may be only two words ("no restrictions"), so at least it would be easy to memorize :). But apart for that, the problems with it that I envision still stand.

 

why would club members be unhappy or even have to be involved in silly discussions?

Somebody has to decide. OK in the US where most clubs have an owner, the decision process is simpler. Here in Europe it would be a dreaded democratic process.

 

Why would you have to bring 2 different convention cards. I think you misunderstood my proposal

Well if it only applies to Vanderbilt while all minor events and club nights just played the standard charter, then the only players who needed two different systems would be those who played in the non-standard tier at the Vanderbilt. But if you want to make "everyone" happy, then clubs and minor tournaments should offer a choice of charts also. So lots of players would sometimes find themselves in one type of event and sometimes in another.

[the hog]

"So lots of players would sometimes find themselves in one type of event and sometimes in another. "

 

Yes, but by their choice, Helene. Anyway, this is a moot point. It is as unlikely to happen as for me to win the lottery.

[chasetb]

As one of the young players, I believe that my personal experience can shed the light needed. I am 22, a college senior, and have been playing Bridge for just over 13 months now. I learned Standard American entirely on my own by reading The Complete Idiot's Guide to Bridge (1st Edition) and entirely because I was bored (new Quarter) and wanted to understand the daily column in the local newspaper.

 

I have tried to teach my friends, but most laugh it off. The top 2 reasons are that "It's a rich old person's game" and "I don't have the time". I can understand the time aspect- I can't play in the local game because of classes; I make a 90 minute drive one-way once every two or three weeks to Pittsburgh to play. The one person that did try to learn from me gave up after 3 weeks because he didn't want to spend the little bit of time every day to learn it- he tried 90 minute sessions once a week, and it didn't work. He just didn't want to put in the 30 minutes a day I told him to, and I racked up $3 in late fees for nothing.

 

The perspective is that it just seems like a pain to spend all that time in the beginning when you aren't getting any satisfaction. Conversely, I can pop in Call of Duty- Modern Warfare 2, and within 5 minutes I am talking smack when getting kills, and calling people cheaters when they kill me. Technology created instant gratification, and Bridge just doesn't provide it (at first).

 

I am the youngest person at any local tournament; I am the youngest at my club by almost 30 years, and I would guess the average age at the club is pushing 65. Of these players, very few, if any have taught their children to play Bridge. We have had 2-3 people join in the past 6 months, and they are in their 60's and came from playing Party bridge.

 

At the club (which has roughly 65-70 members and has no clubs within 20 miles), there are only 10 people including myself that can play 2/1, and only myself that can play a Precision Club. Of course, I live on the edge of nowhere in West Virginia, but even in Pittsburgh, PA, there are only 5-6 people up there that play Precision Club, and over half of all the people from Pittsburgh I would say play Standard American with a tweak here or there.

 

All Clubs in the US control what systems can be played, but to ensure they make money, 99.9% use the ACBL GCC. After all, when over half the people play Standard American, you don't want to scare them and lose their money by allowing a Strong Pass, or even possibly a Polish Club system. System regulations ensure that Bridge can survive. I would like to see that at a National or International event that anything goes, but it's crazy to remove them at anything less then a world class event.

 

If you want to swell the ranks of younger players, you need to have a widespread movement. Start teaching it in schools, and start spreading the word that to become rich like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, you need to play Bridge. Public schools in Cleveland, OH, are supposed to start teaching 7th and 8th graders Bridge this September if they want to not take a math class, so that's a start. If you can expand that to all major cities, but replace Home Ec. or other not important classes, you could solve the youth problem.

 

Otherwise, the few young people that do play today have either been taught by family, or are the unusual person who picks it up like me. If it wasn't for that column in the local paper, I wouldn't be posting this today...

 

-Chase B.

[jdonn]

Yes let's have kids learn card games instead of math in schools, then tell them that by doing so they will be among the top 3 richest people in the world. That would probably turn the tide. And who needs to learn about silly topics like nutrition anyway?

 

Actually your post was doing pretty well until it got to that part.

[chasetb]

Yes let's have kids learn card games instead of math in schools, then tell them that by doing so they will be among the top 3 richest people in the world. That would probably turn the tide. And who needs to learn about silly topics like nutrition anyway?

 

Actually your post was doing pretty well until it got to that part.

I said NON important classes, like Home Economics or Music Appreciation or Health class (7th and 8th grade only, as it's a High School requirement to graduate in Ohio).

[straube]

I thought it was a good post. It's true that Bridge takes a big investment, especially up front. I remember trying to teach some interested dental students once. Their great idea was to reserve one lunch period a week to learn it. I tried to tell them that they'd never learn that way...that they had to immerse themselves in it and of course they got nowhere.

 

I always thought that the best way to teach bridge was to start with an easier game such as Spades so at least the trick-taking/trump concept is down. Maybe the ACBL could use that as a stepping stone. At least there's sooner gratification.

 

I'm all for bridge clubs in schools. It would be nice to see it take hold in the math or computer science departments/ students.

[akhare]

I always thought that the best way to teach bridge was to start with an easier game such as Spades so at least the trick-taking/trump concept is down.  Maybe the ACBL could use that as a stepping stone.  At least there's sooner gratification.

Yup -- I learnt bridge only in my late 20s, but had been playing Hearts for a few years before that.

 

Suits and trumps weren't a problem because I had been exposed the Indian card game of 304 (three nought four) and several other simpler 3 and 2 person card games with trumps growing up...

[mrdct]

I might come off sounding like a heretic, but I'm not convinced that bridge within a normal school curriculum is the answer.

 

Learning bridge takes a lot of time and even if you can get your foot in the door with a school, a couple of periods per week just isn't going to give the kids the time to learn the concepts and gain familiarity with common situations. I think after-school programmes or school holiday programmes are a much better idea (the latter being the way I learnt the game in a one-week crash course right after I finished high school).

 

I've recently taught my 13 year-old son to play the game which I did with a combination of one-on-one instruction, playing on BBO and having him go through Fred's ACBL Learn to Play Bridge stuff on BBO. It probably took him a good three or fours months to "get it" but now he's quite competent as far as the local club duplicate is concerned and has his sights set on doing well in tournaments. A few points I'd like to make:

 

- Teaching my son to play bridge has been one of the most rewarding experiences I've had in my life and has given me an activity that I can share with my son for the rest of my life. There will be some hard yards involved, but in the end your efforts in teaching bridge to your kids will be rewarded so I implore all of you to give it a try.

 

- At 13 kids pretty much remember everything and have enough maths, statistics and problem solving skills to play bridge so it is an absolutely ideal age to teach the game.

 

- On the original topic of youth bridge and system regulations, my son is desperate to play some of the stuff he sees his heros playing on vugraph (his heros being the current crop of Australian youth players who have been doing very well in open events) but he understands and respects my insistence that he delay moving towards complex methods and conventions until he has got all of the natural stuff down-pat. I think it would be counter to his development if he was playing artificial and complex methods at this stage, but within reason I think it's good for him to play against such methods as it gets him thinking about bidding theory and system optimisation. As his competence improves it is inevitable that he will want to experiment with more complex methods and luckily we live in a country where he will be able to do that reasonably easily.

[jdonn]

Yes let's have kids learn card games instead of math in schools, then tell them that by doing so they will be among the top 3 richest people in the world. That would probably turn the tide. And who needs to learn about silly topics like nutrition anyway?

 

Actually your post was doing pretty well until it got to that part.

I said NON important classes, like Home Economics or Music Appreciation or Health class (7th and 8th grade only, as it's a High School requirement to graduate in Ohio).

Sorry but what makes bridge more important than those classes (health class??) I can think of some reasons it's less important.

[georgeac]

Yes let's have kids learn card games instead of math in schools, then tell them that by doing so they will be among the top 3 richest people in the world. That would probably turn the tide. And who needs to learn about silly topics like nutrition anyway?

 

Actually your post was doing pretty well until it got to that part.

I said NON important classes, like Home Economics or Music Appreciation or Health class (7th and 8th grade only, as it's a High School requirement to graduate in Ohio).

Sorry but what makes bridge more important than those classes (health class??) I can think of some reasons it's less important.

I can understand your reasoning for Health but Art or Music Appreciation do not give much value to an education outside of being more cultured.

[straube]

Yes let's have kids learn card games instead of math in schools, then tell them that by doing so they will be among the top 3 richest people in the world. That would probably turn the tide. And who needs to learn about silly topics like nutrition anyway?

 

Actually your post was doing pretty well until it got to that part.

I said NON important classes, like Home Economics or Music Appreciation or Health class (7th and 8th grade only, as it's a High School requirement to graduate in Ohio).

Sorry but what makes bridge more important than those classes (health class??) I can think of some reasons it's less important.

I think you're being a jerk. "Sorry but" is just another overuse of your sarcasm.

 

Why put Chase on the defensive as he (and you conceded) wrote a useful post? You could have just said that you didn't think bridge should be taught in schools but thanks for his perspective on why young people aren't taking to the game. That would have been more nice.

[blackshoe]

I can understand your reasoning for Health but Art or Music Appreciation do not give much value to an education outside of being more cultured.

As someone who had to pursue those subjects on his own, not having had the benefit of them in school, I'd say they have quite a bit of value. In particular the study of art and music has historical implications, so there's more than just "more cultured" there. IMO, anyway.

[the hog]

Yes let's have kids learn card games instead of math in schools, then tell them that by doing so they will be among the top 3 richest people in the world. That would probably turn the tide. And who needs to learn about silly topics like nutrition anyway?

 

Actually your post was doing pretty well until it got to that part.

I said NON important classes, like Home Economics or Music Appreciation or Health class (7th and 8th grade only, as it's a High School requirement to graduate in Ohio).

Sorry but what makes bridge more important than those classes (health class??) I can think of some reasons it's less important.

I can understand your reasoning for Health but Art or Music Appreciation do not give much value to an education outside of being more cultured.

Are you serious? Well I guess you are, however some of us find these areas intrnsicely valuable and they add to the richness of life.