"Bridge is for old people"

[cargobeep]

I've heard it before. "Bridge is for grandmas and grandpas". I think I'm probably one of the few people below the age of 25 who actually play.

 

Why hasn't bridge been able to skew younger?

[billw55]

IMO there are two issues:

 

One, it is perceived as a game for old people, and so young people avoid it for purely social reasons. A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

 

Two, it takes too much patience and attention for most of today's youth.

[hrothgar]

I've heard it before. "Bridge is for grandmas and grandpas". I think I'm probably one of the few people below the age of 25 who actually play.

 

Why hasn't bridge been able to skew younger?

 

Here's my take on things. (I don't claim that this is scientific or even accurate)

 

Bridge benefited enormously from two world class promoters. The first was El Culbertson. The second was Charles Goren.

They both did a phenomenal job at promoting and popularizing the game.

 

Sadly, when Goren left the scene there was no one else big enough to fill his shoes.

 

As a result, you had a "bulge" develop in the population of bridge players.

You have a big cohort who all started playing at about the same time with similar demographic characteristics.

Over time, that cohort got older and eventually, bridge is an "old persona's game".

 

I think that there are a number of other demographic trends which have exacerbated this issue. From my perspective, the biggies are

 

1. Changes in technology. Kids have a wealth of gaming options available to them that didn't exist 30 years ago. My nephew is addicted to Minecraft and loves Settlers of Cataan. I doubt that he knows how to play any card games.

 

2. Increase in the number of two income families

[Free]

Not sure how bridge got it's reputation, but I do have a little anecdote from Belgium.

 

At New Year 2012, bridge (and some other mind sports) was no longer considered a sport for some insurance companies, so membership was no longer subsidized. So during the reportage, a short film is shown with people playing bridge. Needless to say, it was the president of the Belgian Bridge League (an old man), his wife (an old women), and I believe it was their daughter (middle aged) and their grandchild (finally someone young).

 

This was a golden opportunity to show some youngsters and middle aged people playing bridge, in an attempt to change the bad image of the game. But nooooo, they had to go for personal glory (they've been on television, yaaaay!).

[trevahound]

I've heard it before. "Bridge is for grandmas and grandpas". I think I'm probably one of the few people below the age of 25 who actually play.

 

Why hasn't bridge been able to skew younger?

 

In the Seattle area (and other cosmopolitan tech areas), bridge skews younger than in most of the USA. One thing I would like is much more freedom to experiment than the ACBL allows (and tied with that much more full disclosure than the ACBL requires). Basically all teaching for the general player is wildly conservative, in my opinion.

 

By no means do I think this is a majority reason for the average age being what it is, but I think it matters in a small way. The ACBL alert charts and convention charts are non-functional, even if one takes the time to try to understand them and to discuss them with experienced folks.

[mycroft]

As I often say when this comes up, the places where we should be looking for young bridge players are:

 

- current CCG players (especially tournament players)

- current younger poker players.

 

In both of these cases, however, the rabid anti-gambling stance of the ACBL (which, to give them credit, comes from US laws past and present, and not any moral issues) will be an issue.

 

On a side note, the rabid anti-gambling stance of the ACBL really helps me when I cross the border to go to the Nationals;

ICE agent: "Reason for entering the US?"

Me: "I'm playing in a bridge tournament."

ICE agent: "What do you get when you win?"

Me: "Recognition. a slightly higher standing in the rankings."

ICE: agent: "Good luck. Next!"

I'm guessing that were there significant prizes, even if I had no hope of getting them, the conversation would be more laboured.

[dwar0123]

ICE agent: "What do you get when you win?"

Me: "Recognition. a slightly higher standing in the rankings."

 

I wonder if an elo style ranking system such as the one Europe recently adopted might help attract newer players. The current ranking system does favor longevity over skill.

[mikeh]

My unscientific take on the game is that there have always been two broad groups of players attracted to the game: the social players and the geeks, with (I suspect) every poster on BBF and probably every reader being in the latter group.

 

As for the geeks, we love the competitive element of the game: the intellectual challenge.

 

I learned the game in university, starting about 1970. In 1972, Atari released Pong, the first commercially successful video game. I think the first one I saw was on campus in about 1974.

 

My hypothesis is that those late adolescents/young adults who would, in former years, have become bridge players became, instead, video game players.

 

The learning curve is easier, and the direct stimulation of the senses far more vivid. Plus it only took 2 to play a competitive video game while bridge required 4, as well as relative quiet. Video games were often played in pubs and bars.

 

As for the social group, I suspect that part of the reason was that bridge was increasingly identified with an older generation by the 1970's. I don't have any opinion on whether the lack of media coverage played a role in the decline of the game, or whether the decline of the game played a role in the lack of media coverage...I suspect a feedback relationship may have existed. I do know that attempts to show bridge on television met with very little success.

 

Entertainment options were exploding in the 1960s and beyond. Television had become or was about to become colour, even tho the abundance of channels we now take for granted didn't exist. Households had more disposable income so could go out and do things that cost money, whereas in former years, it made economic sense to invite the neighbours around for an evening of bridge.

 

And of course video games, and television, would serve to distract the children who might otherwise have watched their parents play bridge.

 

Today, at least in our area, the 'new' players are all older...they either have retired or are getting close to retirement and seem to be looking for a relatively inexpensive and non-physically demanding means of socializing and finding entertainment. None of this demographic are likely to become serious players, since we seem to lose our ability to acquire new cognitive skills by this time in life...plus I can't see many of them staying up all night to play bridge. I remember, for example, that during my first year in residence at university, which was a year after learning the game, the only times I ever made it to breakfast were when I had played bridge all night....I'd go to breakfast then to bed. My marks weren't very good that year, but I learned a lot about the game.

[lalldonn]

In the ACBL, policy after policy has been designed to cater to the old people who are currently members rather than the young people they want to be members.

 

- Cell phone ban

- Earlier start times

- In Las Vegas (a city full of young people who love card games??) the sectionals are now Monday to Friday, no weekends! I suspect this has occured in other places as well.

 

I know there are reasons they do these things, conflicting goals, etc. But in my opinion they are getting exactly what they should expect.

[Bbradley62]

I don't think this is primarily due to "today's youth" or "gaming options... that didn't exist 30 years ago". I joined ACBL 30 years ago, as a college student. Three pairs of us would go to the twice-weekly duplicate game at the local Y and we'd routinely be the only ones under 40 in a 15-table game. The median age was probably 60, although I'm looking back 30 years later, and maybe 50-year-olds looked like 60-year-olds to me at the time. We'd play sectionals and regionals and experience the same demographics. In addition to the obvious "bridge is an old person's game" reputation, the main culprit was thought to be the smoke-filled rooms where bridge was played. Gradually, smoking was eliminated, but bridge was still an old person's game. There were no junior games back then, only a few colleges had clubs, and virtually no high schools did. ACBL's recruiting programs clearly focused on recent retirees, who were seen as the cash cows.

 

I'd really like to see a comparison of demographics of 2012 and 1982. It appears to me that there are more young people playing today than there were 30 years ago. (I will concede that 50 years ago many more colleges had bridge clubs than 30 years ago. Both of my parents belonged to such clubs.)

[Antrax]

Mikeh, my intelligent friends who aren't into Bridge do play other card games and other intellectual, non-video-game activities. As far as I can see their problem with Bridge is the learning curve (even chess is rewarding faster) and the social atmosphere (all sorts of nice grannies trying to set you up with girls they've heard exist) is a bit off-putting.

[32519]

Over 30 years ago when I was a university student, there was always a bridge game underway in the cafeteria, mostly run by the engineers. These guys even had a league of their own among the different university hostels. Playing bridge was regarded as a “mandatory extra subject” for them. As an accountancy student, we never had something similar and I often found myself joining the engineers whenever they were a player short.

 

Today the engineers qualifying and starting employment at the petro-chemical plant in my hometown have no interest in the game. It appears as though the “mandatory extra subject” is no longer applicable for the guys qualifying today.

 

So yes, a big shift away from the game has occurred in my home country as well.

[kenberg]

Goren was mentioned above, and I learned bridge in 1961 by reading Goren. I was 22. I had played various card games and board games more or less from infancy on. But it was different. Four people would get together and play rubber bridge. I played duplicate once or twice and didn't see the point of it. Then I got busy and really there wasn't time. Also there wasn't much money so even if I knew about regional tourneys and had an inclination to play, it wasn't practical. So that's why this young person did not much play much back then. Later I had more time and more money. I started playing bridge.

 

but I recall driving to a tournament and, on the way, seeing young people out playing tennis. It was a really nice day. I wondered seriously about my choice.

 

I don't know how much of the above applies to the twenty-somethings of today.

 

And now to the confessions of a traitor: When my daughter was in college, she mentioned that someone was going to teach her to play bridge. I suggested that she wait until after graduation. Whether she took my advice or plans just fell through, she never learned to play. I have many regrets in life but discouraging my daughter from learning bridge in college is not one of them.

 

Bridge is a good game. But it's a game, there are other games, there are other things to do that are not games. I enjoy bridge a lot, but if I get busy with other things I don't play. I doubt any more explanation than that is needed.

[RunemPard]

I think that Sweden has about 160-180 juniors (25-) registered with the bridge federation...and I am one of them. Seeing other juniors is not so common, and most of them play at the university cities.

 

I started playing spades when I was 12. Only about 2 years ago did I try out bridge online for the first time. It was quite entertaining. I played rated rubber bridge on Pogo and managed to go 85%+ in my 1st 30 matches without a clue other than basic scoring and card sense. A large group of people to recruit from is the online spades community. (Even more so for the ACBL, as there are many American spades players.)

 

It is actually quite easy for a spades player to become a bridge player, and there are a decent amount of 30-50 year old spades players.

 

I would also like to mention about the weekdays thing. Sweden does this also, and it drives me mad. Currently I have no job, so this does not affect me. However, there is currently only one club playing on Sunday (an hour drive for us) to play at on the weekends. It is as if no clubs here in Sweden will play on Saturday or Sunday, and there are absolutely no events scheduled on Fridays. This to me is a huge factor as well.

 

Regarding the restrictions...in Sweden there are almost no restrictions, I like this a lot, but it sure hasn't helped gain youth bridge players here.

[mycroft]

MikeH (and others) talk about "the new players [are new retirees]". Many of those aren't new, they're returnees after 30 years, either "I learned in the kitchen with Mom and Dad, but never really got into it" or "I played in university, but didn't have time once I started working and a family" - once they do have the time, they say "oh, maybe I should look at this again".

 

We aren't doing either of those (as much) with today's 20-ers; and as far as I am concerned, any junior policy that doesn't have "put bridge into the congition of hundreds or thousands of school/university people, *expecting 90+% of them to leave the game*" as a priority is useless self-defeating; in 30 years the pool of new retirees that can say "oh, that was fun, maybe I should look at getting back into it" will dry up.

[bluecalm]

In Poland there are tons of young people playing bridge :)

[paulg]

The Scottish youth co-ordinator tells me that "bridge is not cool" but, to be honest, I don't think it ever was.

 

It is a difficult game to learn, you need four people, one of whom you get on with - real barriers. But in the UK my impression is that the biggest change has been in schools - extra-curricular activities require far more effort than twenty years ago: fewer teachers have the time or inclination; compulsory police checks put volunteers off; and the kids have less time, not least because a decent education seems more important.

[Quantumcat]

As many other people have said, it is probably the amount of learning needed to start enjoying the game that puts people off. Any other game, a quick five minute explanation of the rules is all that is needed.

 

I played 500 in high school, so I didn't need to learn too much before I could play without constantly asking questions - I could handle basic auctions already and knew about drawing trump, returning partner's suit etc. Probably the same for the others who said they started with Spades. Maybe it is better to be content teaching kids to play Whist (or other partnership trick-taking games that are simpler than bridge) and not bother them with bridge until they communicate that they are ready for more of a challenge?

[rhm]

I've heard it before. "Bridge is for grandmas and grandpas".

Naturally you never hear this from people who know how to play Bridge well.

And those who make such statement have prejudices about old people.

If people would make a statement like Bridge is for black people you would call them racists, but making denigrating statements about old people is okay.

 

Why hasn't bridge been able to skew younger?

Why do so few people take up Chess or learn how to play a music instrument well?

Because it needs some endeavor.

 

Many young people spent a lot of time in front of a screen, whether this is a television, a playing station or an iphone does not matter much.

Whether this makes them clever or is an improvement over the past can be argued.

 

By the way I do not care very much for this problem.

I have no missionary zeal.

I am not worried that this game might die out in the near future.

Call me elitist if you like. I get worried if too many people are fascinated by what fascinates me.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

Me: 'bridge is fun'

Girl: 'bridge is just for old people'

Me: 'but I play bridge!'

Girl: 'you must be old'

 

:(

 

Yes OK not really the best pickup line..

[gnasher]

It's nothing to do with bridge - she just doesn't like you. If she did, it would be:

Gwnn: 'bridge is fun'

Girl: 'bridge is for clever people'

Gwnn: 'but I play bridge!'

Girl: 'you must be clever'

[Cyberyeti]

The Scottish youth co-ordinator tells me that "bridge is not cool" but, to be honest, I don't think it ever was.

 

It is a difficult game to learn, you need four people, one of whom you get on with - real barriers. But in the UK my impression is that the biggest change has been in schools - extra-curricular activities require far more effort than twenty years ago: fewer teachers have the time or inclination; compulsory police checks put volunteers off; and the kids have less time, not least because a decent education seems more important.

You don't need 4 people to learn the game, my grandfather taught me 1:1 starting when I was 7 or 8 and playing the 3 other hands.

 

Agree with your comment about schools, but particularly state schools, the independent sector has a different view of extracurricular activities and I suspect it still goes on there (certainly I see a couple of younger people from my old school on the circuit).

 

Another problem I came across was when I went to the Isle of Man some years ago for the congress there. They couldn't get bridge into schools as playing cards were viewed as "the devil's picture book" and forbidden.

[gwnn]

Why do so few people take up Chess or learn how to play a music instrument well?

Because it needs some endeavor.

These are not really the best examples, there are many young chess players and especially musicians around (of course, much less than young TV watchers or Facebook users).

[Zelandakh]

I have to agree with Mike that bridge players seem to come in as either social players or geeks. As a child I was a fairly decent chess player and played analysis games against myself pretty much every day. I also went to the library every month to read avidly every chess book they had - I think I had Modern Chess Openings on loan for something like 2 years. When I ran out of chess books I read maths books. Somewhere in-between were books on card games so I took those out and tried out almost every patience game known to man. With nothing else of interest I finally took out a couple of bridge books, one on Basic Acol (where Acol was 5 card majors and 16-18 NT!) and a very large book by Culbertson.

 

From these books I learned bridge and played it as a patience game (controlling all 4 hands) using Honour Trick evaluation using a bidding system created by fusing together ideas from the 2 books. It was a nice intellectual exercise and time-filler. Indeed I played bridge this way for about 5 years before I ever had a partner. In fact I did try to play bridge in a club during that time but every club in the local area played "penny a hundred" at the time and it was against my principles to gamble (not to mention against the law, though noone seemed to care about that) so it was not possible.

 

I finally got to play bridge with real people at university. My new partner also had some funny ideas from a home-made system, not all of which he could remmeber. One of those was using 2♦ to cover strong 2s but he could not remmeber the details. Thus we re-invented a twisted version of Benji Acol in a couple of minutes. SOme other things were not so useful but we ironed things out and managed to get promoted in the league over the year. Less successful was playing in a club - we entered an U25 event held at the Young Chelsea. The players and officials there were so unfriendly we avoided bridge clubs after that and just played with friends. Our regular opponents played a forcing pass system against us - lots of fun!

 

The point here is that juniors usually learn bridge because they are geeks. Usually that is to play with other geeks but it does not have to be. Bridge as a solo activity is also something that can appeal to this group. When bridge computers become good enough to give a decent game and also allow pet systems to be used then this will also be a big boost to this group. What works very badly against bridge for juniors imho is the atmosphere in many bridge clubs. Many bridge players seem to feel some sense of superiority, either intellectual (local version of BBO Expert syndrome) or social (because they are (or see themselves as) upper-middle). Nothing puts an aspiring geek off more than a group of old people who think they know better (but usually do not). Add the genuinely rude and obnoxious players to that and it is easy to see why many kids that learn bridge end up putting it to one side until they are much older, or permanently.

 

The simple truth is that Josh is right. Until bridge clubs and tournaments make themselves more junior-friendly it is difficult to see how there can ever be a significant change in the population demographic. It may be possible to encourage more people to learn (some of) the rules in younger years, perhaps through Bridge Lite forms of the game such as Minibridge, Best Hand or as a computer game, in the hope that some of these will progress into RA-organised bridge later in life. I am also quite strongly of the belief that strict system regulation is overall a disincentive for juniors, even when this is often held up as a protection for new players. The reason is that the young players are nearly always of the geek type and like to experiment with bidding ideas, irrelevant whether good or bad. I am well aware that this position is contested though and it also clearly at odds with the desires of the social group to allow too much de-regulation at lower levels of competition.

 

As for the suggestions on where to recruit young players from - poker players might be an option if it were possible to win large amounts of money by mastering a small number of techniques; questionable even for Bridge Lite forms of the game to be honest. Similarly for CCG players - these are used to the idea of creating a deck to give them an advantage over the competition. With complete system de-regulation these players could potentially advance bidding theory rather quickly, especially in destructive forms of bidding. That is not going to be allowed anytime soon so I cannot see much attraction in bridge for most of these. Hearts, on the other hand, is definitely a potential pool of future bridge players. Similarly for Skat in Germany and any one of a number of other card games in other countries. Sadly this pool is quite small but at least it would be a start. For me the most logical group to target though is strategy game players - board games such as chess as well as computer games. These players are the perfect geeks with an attention span that could be taught bridge. Maybe the game would not interest most of them but the pool is massive so it would only take a tiny percentage to make a huge difference in the demographic. A more difficult question would be how to reach these potential players. Here sadly I do not have the answers - only to say again that better bridge computers might be helpful somewhere down the line.

[Vampyr]

I wonder if an elo style ranking system such as the one Europe recently adopted might help attract newer players. The current ranking system does favor longevity over skill.

 

I do not know whether the above is is true; I am (I think) a member of the EBL and it seems I might have heard something. In any case, I don't think that a rating system (dynamic or otherwise) could be instrumental in attracting new players. Players would be unaware of such a system until they started playing competitively, probably in events sponsored by their NBO.

 

I think, actually, that for newer players (whose dynamic rating would be very low for a rather long time) earning their first masterpoints is pretty exciting, as it marks a milestone in their development as a bridge player.