The Two Groups of Bridge

[glen]

... as usual Hanp wins thread.

that's because he has the most threadpoints

[awm]

There are basically three steps in recruiting new bridge players:

 

(1) Teaching people the basics of the game.

(2) Getting people who know the basics of the game to play duplicate regularly (clubs or local tournaments).

(3) Getting people involved in "serious" tournament bridge.

 

Usually the steps occur in that order, although there are a few cases of people who skipped directly from "basics" to "tournaments" and never really played in clubs or in local tournaments. There are also definitely cases of people who don't get all the way through step 3. Anyway, assuming that our goal is for tournament bridge to survive and thrive, we need to consider what we can do to ease each step of the process.

 

A lot of the effort made by ACBL (and by other organizations) focuses on step 1. Years ago when bridge was more popular, almost everyone knew the basics of the game. It's true that a lot of people who learn the basics will not start playing regular duplicate. But having a lot of people who know the basics (and maybe play socially at home on occasion) will help to teach the game to more people, will lead to people who are more supportive of initiatives like bridge in schools, and maybe some of the people who don't catch the duplicate bug right away will end up coming back to the game later in life (when kids leave home or when they retire or something like that).

 

Nonetheless, it makes sense to think a little bit about steps 2 and 3. We need to consider (especially in the context of younger players) how to make these transitions easier.

[nige1]

"You are old. father William," the young gun said,

"And you play on-line bridge every night,

And yet you write garbage in this forum thread,

Do you think, at your age, this is right?"

 

"In my youth," said the Ace, "I played in a group

Who knew all that there is to be known,

Although now I forget a simple Bath Coup,

I can still cope with basic Roth-Stone."

[kenberg]

I live in Maryland. So what?

Well, the Preakness was Saturday. I have already forgotten which horse won.

The lack oi interest in horse racing is regularly bemoaned around here. What can be done to get me interested in horse racing? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I know people who are great enthusiasts. I'm not. If I had a horse and if I were fifty years younger and if I grew up in horse country, then maybe. But I don't, I'm not, and I didn't.

 

I can't think of a thing that would get my non-bridge playing friends interested in playing bridge, tournament or otherwise. Nor would I know how to get those who ride horses for pleasure to take up polo. Or jousting.

 

If the finances of tournaments are a problem, then that has to be addressed. Fantasizing that the solution is to get large masses of people to suddenly show up at tournaments is not addressing it seriously, however.

[qwery_hi]

So it makes all the more sense to cater to the needs of people already interested in playing bridge. How about at each Nationals having a nationally rated pair game where superchart methods are allowed. AFAIK there isn't one. The people who'd sign up for this would know what they are getting into surely.

 

I live in Maryland. So what?

Well, the Preakness was Saturday. I have already forgotten which horse won.

The lack oi interest in horse racing is regularly bemoaned around here. What can be done to get me interested in horse racing? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I know people who are great enthusiasts. I'm not. If I had a horse and if I were fifty years younger and if I grew up in horse country, then maybe. But I don't, I'm not, and I didn't.

 

I can't think of a thing that would get my non-bridge playing friends interested in playing bridge, tournament or otherwise. Nor would I know how to get those who ride horses for pleasure to take up polo. Or jousting.

 

If the finances of tournaments are a problem, then that has to be addressed. Fantasizing that the solution is to get large masses of people to suddenly show up at tournaments is not addressing it seriously, however.

[kenberg]

So it makes all the more sense to cater to the needs of people already interested in playing bridge. How about at each Nationals having a nationally rated pair game where superchart methods are allowed. AFAIK there isn't one. The people who'd sign up for this would know what they are getting into surely.

 

Sounds good to me, both the general principle and the specific application. I might well sign up for the superchart game providing I am not required to, myself, play some of these weird things. But very much I like the philosophy of bridge tournaments for bridge players.

 

When I first started playing, the Washington Brisge League unit game had an upstairs downstairs dichotomy. Steve Robinson et al played upstairs, I played downstairs. This was not so I could win masterpoints, it was because I was a beginner and it seemed stupid to go play where I wouldn't understand what was going on. Steve, and Peter and many others, still outplay me but now I belong upstairs. Whether I belong in a superchart game could be debated, but I don't think I would come in last.

[Vampyr]

Any "+" or "++" will denote a tournament player, and they need to keep a necessary % of colored points to maintain this status.

Doesn't everyone win in this scenario?

 

Not the clubs.

[awm]

I live in Maryland. So what?

Well, the Preakness was Saturday. I have already forgotten which horse won.

The lack oi interest in horse racing is regularly bemoaned around here. What can be done to get me interested in horse racing? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I know people who are great enthusiasts. I'm not. If I had a horse and if I were fifty years younger and if I grew up in horse country, then maybe. But I don't, I'm not, and I didn't.

 

I can't think of a thing that would get my non-bridge playing friends interested in playing bridge, tournament or otherwise. Nor would I know how to get those who ride horses for pleasure to take up polo. Or jousting.

 

So first of all, it's important to get more people on a horse when they are young. This does not automatically translate into an interest in horse racing -- maybe some people hate riding the horse, or just get involved in other things and never come back to it. In your case, maybe if you had spent a lot of time around horses when you were in your 20s you'd be into horse racing now. Or maybe not... but it seems like a necessary pre-condition. This is basically what ACBL is trying to do with bridge -- give lots of people an introduction to the game when they are young and hope that it catches on with a few of them.

 

However, there's a second question of how to get people who do ride horses into horse racing. It could well be that lots of people enjoy riding a horse but still don't care at all about the races. If this is the case, then making sure everyone spends some time on a horse when they are young may not be enough to keep horse racing viable. There are some things that can be done to address this, by making the races as welcoming as possible, by increasing publicity or prize money, by having the best jockeys do some PR or community service work, by having special events where people who are only moderately experienced riders can compete, and so forth. This is what I'd call the "second stage" of improving bridge popularity -- getting people who already know how to play at a basic level and enjoy social bridge to participate in duplicate events. Obviously this is not for everyone, but there are things that can be done like making clubs as welcoming as possible, trying to improve the demographics at clubs by encouraging young players to come out, having prizes, having the best players do some PR or community service work (i.e. bridge lessons, commentating on vugraph), by having special events where people who are only moderately experienced players can compete, and so forth.

 

It seems to me that ACBL makes a very concerted effort to teach the basics of the game, but doesn't do as much to get people out to clubs and tournaments. The "zero tolerance" policy is probably the biggest advance in making clubs friendly, but enforcement of that policy is kind of a joke. Prizes are a joke. Some top players do significant PR or community service work, but it's pretty much on their own dime. There are events where moderately experienced players can compete but I think it's an issue how strictly segregated these are from the top players (to the degree that they are sort of separate from the "main tournament") and how the bracketing/flighting is based on master points and not skill level.

[matmat]

Any time someone like Han sits down at my table on BBO it totally ruins the pleasure of playing for me, and I either leave or boot them. I don't want to hear why my play was backed only by the authority of a large number of monsterpoints.

[han]

There are basically three steps in recruiting new bridge players

 

That's a sweeping generalization.

[JLOGIC]

That's a sweeping generalization.

 

They say the OP sets the tone of a thread...

[BillHiggin]

All Bridge players fall into one of two groups:

Those who are similar to me

The rest

[Vampyr]

Prizes are a joke.

 

Here in the UK, first prize at a duplicate game is generally not significantly more than the table money, and a win at a tournament will often not be enough to cover expenses for the weekend. I assume that other countries have similar levels of prizes.

 

Would better prizes help? My guess is that any increase in interest would be offset by the necessary rise in entrance fees. For many people a duplicate session represents a reasonably-priced evening's entertainment; and tournament numbers (here at least) are suffering lately, largely due to the expense.

[crazy4hoop]

I was also thinking that making bridge affordable might be in the list of priorities. Unfortunately, I don't think I have the solution(s).

[gnasher]

I used to think that there were two types of bridge player: those who knew how many masterpoints they had, and those who knew how to play bridge. Then my world view was shattered by overhearing a Bermuda Bowl winner telling someone how many masterpoints he had.

[qwery_hi]

Online bridge might force the ACBL to make bridge more affordable. If the goal is to have a fun time, then a BBO speedball beats the hassle of driving 10 miles and paying 8-10 dollars. When more online masterpoints are counted toward the ranks, and there will be greater pressure from the members for this to happen, then online bridge is going to dominate club bridge. Now, if only we had a 2-2.5 hour speedball with 24 boards on BBO, that would be ideal for lot of players I guess.

 

I was also thinking that making bridge affordable might be in the list of priorities. Unfortunately, I don't think I have the solution(s).

[han]

I used to think that there were two types of bridge player: those who knew how many masterpoints they had, and those who knew how to play bridge. Then my world view was shattered by overhearing a Bermuda Bowl winner telling someone how many masterpoints he had.

 

Just wait until you meet me, I don't fit in either category!

[helene_t]

I cannot challenge whether Group 1 exists in the ACBL, but it is not a description that I would apply to any group in the UK bridge community.

I am generally suspicious of describing populations as comprised of "groups", and also in this case I think it is more like a continuum. Except that there is an almost-clear segregation between club players and non-club players, with very few people playing "some club bridge but more kitchen bridge". At the club in Lancaster, one could break down the demographics like this (percentages my rough estimates):

10% members who almost never show up except for maybe charity events, they may or may not play kitchen bridge outside the club

25% people who play almost only at "simple systems session" (kitchen bridge at the club's premises, you could call it)

25% people who play in various club sessions, simple systems as well as level 3 (and for some level 4 also). A few of these play kitchen bridge outside the club also.

20% people who play in various clubs sessions, mainly EBU level 3 sessions. Most of these people are not EBU members so have no masterpoints. A few will occasionally play minor tournaments.

10% people who play regularly in level 4 sessions but almost never at tournaments. Some of these collect masterpoints. Some of these play in other sessions also.

3% people who play level 4 session regularly and also tournaments at various levels regularly.

7% people who almost never show up at the club and mainly play serious (or for some: semi-serious) tournaments.

 

but obviously the categories are arbitrary and however you define them you will find people on the borderlines between types. For some the choice between simple systems, level 3 and level 4 has not so much to do with the level but more with the friendliness on these evenings, or simply which evening fits into the weekly family routine.

[helene_t]

There are also a number of beginner/intermediate players in group two. This includes a lot of young players who are just starting out, or a lot of our B/I posters to the forums. They don't necessarily "finish in the top few" at the local club because they are lacking in experience. They may experiment with unusual methods or agreements, but a lot of times they don't know how to build a cohesive system and end up playing funny stuff that doesn't exactly work.

 

As mentioned in Dana Berkowitz's post on bridge dying, there is a serious issue that bridge seems to have no place for the B/I members of group two. If these players go to their local club or play in a low bracket at a local tournament, they will be surrounded by "group one" players who don't like playing against them. But if they try to play in a top-level event (bracket one at the regional, say) then they will be totally overmatched. The directors may not even let them "play up" that far, and while the experts from "group two" may not mind trouncing the newcomers, the level of play is so far above them that they may get frustrated and may not actually learn all that much.

I think this group which we could call the wannabee experts (I recon myself in this group, although the reason that I am not an expert is more due to lack of talent than lack of experience), is reasonable catered to in the EBU structure where many serious and semi-serious events are open swiss. You will get to play some decent opps early in a swiss event unless you are very unlucky. If you are better than your masterpoints suggest it is no problem, nobody cares about masterpoints anyway. If your ability to participate in gadget ranting and post-mortems (as in my case) or social skills (as in some other players' cases) somehow compensate you lack of abilities then you will be able to get teammates and partners above your own level at least on occasions.

 

I found it more difficult in the Netherlands where the bridge community is more level-segregated, presumably because the number of NBB members per square kilometer is about 20 times higher than the density in the UK so the Dutch can afford the segregation.

[RMB1]

Nigel, quoting Cabaret:

Now Fatherland, Fatherland, show us the sign

Your children have waited to see

The morning will come

When the world is mine

Tomorrow belongs to me.

 

See Godwin's Law

[nige1]

Naturally, professionals, tournament directors, officials, and other groups may each have a slightly different agenda. As ordinary players, however, we regularly played in open competition against Benjamin, Flint, Cansino, Collings, Markus, Harrison-Gray, Omar Sharif, the Sharples Brothers, Reese, Schapiro, Belladonna, Garrozzo, Kelsey, Crowhurst, Zia, Rosenberg, and so on and on and on. There are few games more homogenous than Bridge and we should resist attempts to segregate it.

[RMB1]

This month's "English Bridge" (EBU Magazine) celebrates the EBU's 75 anniversary and carries some articles from 1936. One article discusses opening on a 1156 hand and compares six different bidding systems: with wildly different choices on this hand. If our (great)grandparents couldn't agree on one bidding system, how can we expect any commonality now?

[Zelandakh]

If you look at bridge in this "golden age" the thing that drove it was publicity. Alot of that had to do with Ely Culbertson, of course, but bridge was marketed the way poker is now. And look, poker has essentially replaced bridge as the card game of "excitement". The publicity of the day was driven by newspapers and indeed many papers still carry a bridge column. The trouble is that newspapers are not the medium of choice for the youth. Bridge marketing has to come through online (such as BBO) and, most of all, through television. How to make bridge interesting on TV is surely the key to re-popularising the game, at least until a different medium comes along.

 

Whether that is actually possible I do not know. Lots of different formats have been tried and none have really captured the imagination of the public. But look at poker as a role model for what can be done. It is not a game that is any more exciting than bridge, really quite the reverse. The combination of "big money", celebrities and accessibility has driven the boom. Bridge can offer the first 2 easily; the third is more difficult of course. Crack that and the game will flourish.

[hrothgar]

But look at poker as a role model for what can be done. It is not a game that is any more exciting than bridge, really quite the reverse.

 

Poker didn't become popular on TV until the widespread emergence of Hold'Em.

 

Hold'Em is a much faster paced game than 5 card draw or stud.

It's also significantly simpler and places a much higher premium on table feel.

 

You might be able to popularize something called "Bridge" on TV, however, I'm guessing that it would be another My Lai

 

What was the quote? "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"

[gwnn]

Two kinds of bridge plays: those made with active cogent reasoning and those that I usually make :(