"Bridge is for old people"

[Vampyr]

Young Chelsea. The players and officials there were so unfriendly

 

Just an aside for potential attendees of the Young Chelsea -- it is not like this now! It is a friendly and welcoming place, including when youth and junior events are held there!

[barmar]

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.

 

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.

I don't see how either of these can be blamed. Only people who already know how to play the game are affected by these issues. So they might cause someone who knows how to play to give up on duplicate bridge or playing in tournaments. But if you're just considering whether to learn bridge at all, how would you know that "freedom to experiment" is even something that matters?

[hrothgar]

But if you're just considering whether to learn bridge at all, how would you know that "freedom to experiment" is even something that matters?

 

I agree that individuals who are "considering whether to learn bridge at all" probably won't have the necessary information to make an informed decision. However, I don't think this is a valid restriction.

 

I suspect that this sort of issue crops up after players have a few months of experience under their belt and want to start tinkering with things.

 

FWIW, I think that I am a pretty fair example of the strategy / wargaming geek that was originally described.

I was drawn to bridge because of the complexity.

 

I stopped playing seriously because of the system regulations.

[barmar]

I suspect that this sort of issue crops up after players have a few months of experience under their belt and want to start tinkering with things.

I find it difficult to believe that many beginners would feel ready to "tinker" after only a few months of play. Maybe the occasional bridge prodigy might get up to speed that quickly.

[billw55]

I find it difficult to believe that many beginners would feel ready to "tinker" after only a few months of play. Maybe the occasional bridge prodigy might get up to speed that quickly.

I would expect that this depends on their background to some extent. For example, if they come from CCG, where build-and-test is fundamental, they very well might.

[olegru]

I find it difficult to believe that many beginners would feel ready to "tinker" after only a few months of play.

It depends primary of age of that beginners. Old and wise people know thay need to learn how to walk before start run and jump. Youngsters looking for shortcuts that allow to start winning right now and creating own systesm and conventions looks like a good idea for them. This is just a natural way to grow up.

[Phil]

I find it difficult to believe that many beginners would feel ready to "tinker" after only a few months of play. Maybe the occasional bridge prodigy might get up to speed that quickly.

 

I specifically remember sitting in detention during my junior of high school and designing bidding systems. This was after playing only a few months and reading books like Rosencranz' "Bid Your Way To The Top".

 

A lot of the beauty of bridge to a young player is the potential for innovation. Its not unlike building a car or a writing a computer game.

[barmar]

I guess where I'm coming from is that someone has to teach them that designing bidding systems is even an option. When I was learning bridge, someone just taught me "This bid means this, that bid means that" and so on. It wasn't until I'd been playing for a while that I learned that I could pick and choose conventions, and some people use entirely different bidding systems -- these aren't part of the "rules" of the game.

 

Furthermore, if restrictions like these are really the problem, why aren't other games affected similarly? Are there kids who give up on chess because the rook can only move horizontally or vertically, or poker because they can't change what beats what? I suppose the difference is that most other games are totally rigid, but bridge allows some flexibility. Psychologically, it feels worse to be given some choice, but being restricted in what seems to be arbitrary ways.

[lalldonn]

I don't see how either of these can be blamed. Only people who already know how to play the game are affected by these issues. So they might cause someone who knows how to play to give up on duplicate bridge or playing in tournaments. But if you're just considering whether to learn bridge at all, how would you know that "freedom to experiment" is even something that matters?

What? You quoted me but cut out the examples I used, then argued with an example that I never used.

 

Are you disputing that new young players would attend more tournaments if they could go on weekends, sleep later, and keep their cell phones?

[Vampyr]

keep their cell phones?

 

Is the phone thing really an issue? Can't you grab your phone from the box or desk (or wherever they are being held) on your way out of the playing room?

[hrothgar]

Furthermore, if restrictions like these are really the problem, why aren't other games affected similarly? Are there kids who give up on chess because the rook can only move horizontally or vertically, or poker because they can't change what beats what?

 

Might want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess

As I recall, Fisher spent a fair amount of time trying to redesign chess...

 

Regardless, I suppose a lot of this depends on what you are used to with respect to gaming.

 

While I never got into collectable card games I did play a lot of Warhammer and Star Fleet Battles. Both games have massive rule books. A large part of the strategy involves purchasing the best army possible given a fixed budget constraint.

[onoway]

I think a big part of the problem is that everyone seems to have the idea that only duplicate bridge is actually "real" bridge and so rubber bridge...which is what most people probably used to play, is regarded as somehow inferior and not worth discussing or encouraging. I doubt most people who had weekly get togethers with their neighbors or had bridge luncheons used to belong to the ACBL and until you have people a) learning the game and b) then deciding that they want to get more competitive then you won't make much headway into bringing the game back.

 

Bridge had the reputation of being too difficult for "normal people" before Goren came along, I believe, and much of his success was bringing to it a system that anyone felt they could play, and so they did, feeling perhaps slightly smug that they could play a game they had THOUGHT only MIT profs and such could play. He celebrated and was successful using a simple method of playing bridge and I think that's why so many people learned the game in the first place. He established that you didn't need to know/play 50 conventions to play competitively. How well most people played might be a matter of question, (how well do most people play now?) but they enjoyed the game and that was the point.. and it was a regular part of their lives.

 

You could teach someone how to play basic bridge in a very short time. I taught my kids how to play when they were all very young (6-10) using Goren (all I knew at the time anyway) and now I have returned to the game and somewhat come up to speed...if we were back in the day but I knew what I know now I wouldn't even start to try to teach them the game.

 

I think the other major problem is courtesy. People play games such as bridge for the social aspect..otherwise why play a game which normally requires 4 people? If bridge is known for being a game for smart people it is often also known as the game where people are sometimes unbelievably rude to each other.

 

Agreed that most families have both parents working now, so no way the bridge luncheon thing is likely or possible, but as people get more and more isolated it seems to me that bridge COULD be a way for people to reconnect socially. I don't think it's going to happen unless another such as Goren comes along..who can take a game with the image of being both elitist and for older people and bring it into the sphere of the average person. Most people don't want math and complicated stuff in their lives, their lives are already too complicated. Goren showed them they didn't need much of it at all. Nobody now is carrying that torch.

 

Perhaps one direction could be that some mover/shaker of the bridge world recognise that lots of people would never be especially interested in playing duplicate bridge or going after points and just focus on bringing in players who enjoy a few rubbers every week. I think then more people would find their way into duplicate bridge eventually, if only to avoid the dreary nights of rubber bridge when the cards all run in the wrong direction. Starting with duplicate is to me like taking people who want to play pick up basketball and treating them as though they all are trying to get into the NBA. No doubt some do, but most have no such illusions, they just want to have some fun. Nobody now seems to be able to project the idea that bridge is..or at least can be... FUN.

[lalldonn]

Is the phone thing really an issue?

Yes a huge one to many people.

[billw55]

Yes a huge one to many people.

Apparently so, although I don't really get it myself. Why so hard to go without a phone for a few hours? But young people these days seem just fused to their phones like borg or something :P

 

btw how did I end up in your signature?

[lalldonn]

You said something funny. Hope you don't mind. :)

[billw55]

nah, I don't mind. I just didn't know it was funny. My wife tells me that I am not funny when I am trying to be, maybe there is a relation there.

[nigel_k]

I have no idea why more young people don't play, though I suspect the fact that many of them are unaware the game even exists could be relevant.

 

But it does seem as though these threads tend to take the form of: "The reason more young people don't play is [insert whatever the poster doen't like about the way the game is administered]".

[Bbradley62]

Is the phone thing really an issue? Can't you grab your phone from the box or desk (or wherever they are being held) on your way out of the playing room?

Yes a huge one to many people.

The US Tennis Assn is having issues with this also. League/tournament matches last anywhere from 1-3 hours, depending on the format, the closeness, etc. The rule is now that if your cellphone rings, you lose the point that was in progress; if it happens a second time during the match, you lose the match. So, it's easy enough to turn off the ringer.

 

In a match, players switch ends of the court roughly every 10-15 minutes (a "changeover"), and each time they do they get a rest period not to exceed 90 seconds. No one under about 35 years of age appears to be capable of taking that 90-second break without checking their cellphone, sending a text, updating their Facebook status, etc. Of course, they all say "I can do all that in the alloted time; it's everyone else who can't", just like it's everyone else who can't text and drive safely, but no one is using a stopwatch while the player says "just a sec, while I finish this text". As a 50-year-old, I am always ready to return to the court before my 30-year-old opponent. My attitude is: if you're here to play tennis, turn the cellphone off and play tennis.

 

Tennis and bridge have similar cheating potential with cellphones. Coaching is explicitly disallowed in USTA league/tournament tennis matches and no one is checking your incoming texts which could easily be from a teammate saying "hit more to his forehand". I look forward to the day when USTA bans cellphone use during matches altogether.

[barmar]

Are you disputing that new young players would attend more tournaments if they could go on weekends, sleep later, and keep their cell phones?

No, I just don't think tournament attendance is relevant to the question. We're talking about young people not taking up the game in the first place, presumably because they think it's just for old people.

 

AFAIK, the cell phone ban is only in NABC+ events, so it's irrelevant to 99% of the ACBL membership, and practically all new players. I think few players are likely to run into it until they're already hooked on the game, and I can't imagine them punting just because of it.

 

In New England, I've never heard of any sectional only being on weekdays. They're all either Sat/Sun or Fri Night/Sat/Sun.. And our regionals all include a weekend. I don't know how the rest of the country compares. Maybe it's because we have a large contingent of students (all the colleges in the Boston area), so we know we'd been shooting ourselves in the foot.

[jeffford76]

I look forward to the day when USTA bans cellphone use during matches altogether.

 

If this were all that happened at bridge a lot less people would care. It's not that people need to use their phones during the match, but rather the hassle of dealing with them before and after.

[sailoranch]

No, I just don't think tournament attendance is relevant to the question. We're talking about young people not taking up the game in the first place, presumably because they think it's just for old people.

 

I thought we were talking generally about why there are few young players. Part of the reason is that no one is learning the game, but part of the reason is that juniors drop the game or play less often because of the club and tournament culture.

 

I agree with everything that Zel said about smugness. My experience is that a lot of this comes from everyone's obsession with masterpoints, both as a reflection of skill and as a reward system. It's hard for a younger player to find an older partner with roughly the same skill and desire to improve, partly because they are already in comfortable partnerships, but also because these players scoff at the masterpoint total. Most of the willing partners are casual players content working their way up to LM in the limited game.

[olegru]

I guess where I'm coming from is that someone has to teach them that designing bidding systems is even an option. When I was learning bridge, someone just taught me "This bid means this, that bid means that" and so on.

 

I would not start to play in such a boring game... Really, are you telling I had to learn by heart that 50 pages book before I will be able to start to play? Pfui. Lord of warcraft is much more fun. I did enough homework in my school.

 

I started to play completely different way. At first I did not even know that such thing as a bidding system exist. I was told that my partner and I can bid any way we want, but if we would like to have a good results it is better to discuss meaning of our bids. Also we were told very important rule - if my partner and me do have any agreements about certain bid - we had to disclose our agreements. We start to discuss something, but our methods were not playable at all, we were always getting in situation we did not think about. I realize that creating bidding system is a big task. And only then somebody taught me about “good boys” who already developed several bidding systems. We can just take one of them as a basis to cover majority of situation and modify system by our needs.

 

You see the difference?

I started to play right away.

I liked the game, but I realize I need to do some job in order to be able to win.

A started to do that job.

I realize that job is much harder than I thought.

And only now I got a bidding system to help.

 

Furthermore, if restrictions like these are really the problem, why aren't other games affected similarly? Are there kids who give up on chess because the rook can only move horizontally or vertically, or poker because they can't change what beats what?

 

It is easy question. Chess and Poker rules you quoted are inseparable part of the game. It is what you were giving originally. Rook moves only horizontally or vertically...you could make a castle only if king did not move ... ace beats jack at the same suit ... you can play trump only if you have no cards in the suit leaded and so on.

If you change any of that rules it will be different game.

System restrictions are not part of the game. At least it is not inseparable part of the game. And they don’t look fair too. Why that Stayman guy could agree with his partner that his 2 clubs bid asking to bid 2 diamonds if he has no 4 cards majors, and I can’t agree with my partner that my 1 ♠ bid asking him to bid 2 clubs if does not have Ace of spades?

Let kids do their mistakes, they will learn, but if you will try to put knowledge in their heads they will resist.

[dwar0123]

Why that Stayman guy could agree with his partner that his 2 clubs bid asking to bid 2 diamonds if he has no 4 cards majors, and I can’t agree with my partner that my 1 ♠ bid asking him to bid 2 clubs if does not have Ace of spades?

Let kids do their mistakes, they will learn, but if you will try to put knowledge in their heads they will resist.

I imagine part of the reason is that if we explicitly allow new players to do that, then we have to allow anyone to do that. Which means grandma might have to deal with multi-2 diamonds in her little ole 299'r game. Which might cause grandma to just stay home.

 

On the other hand, I suspect new players are implicitly allowed to do what ever crazy thing they want, so long as it doesn't work to well :)

 

If it starts to work well, then they will probably be required to abide by the restrictions everyone is compelled to abide by.

[SteveMoe]

There's an old truism: the organization (and strategy) we have is optimally designed to deliver the results we see. When the ACBL decides to focus on 15-18's, 19-29's and under 45's we will have a chance at getting social benefits for all age strata we want served.

 

Imagine if the ACBL offered prepackaged curricula suitable for teaching in a 4 year high school program, offered some incentives (perhaps with Distric level support) to encourage HS teachers to lead clubs - or better - teach bridge as part of math (counting, inference, logic, probability). France (63.6 MM) and Netherlands (16.5 MM) together have more registered players (188,000) than the 167000 ACBL members in USA (315.8MM) and Canada (33.8 MM). Why? Schools introduce bridge early. Families play at home. Friends play at school.

 

Imagine if the ACBL made games available (on line if necessary) for college students, ecnouraged clubs on campus and allowed for the experimentation and creativity new minds can bring to the game.

 

Imagine if we could play bridge on our Androids, iPhones, iPads, tablets, and pcs - better still on Xbox or PlayStation. Imagine if we could play for just a few hands or for hours at a time, not against a fixed game format. Imagine if players vied for 3-6 months to gain credits toward a money reward (say, college scholarship)?

 

Imagine if the ACBL made Under 29's social networking for bridge a priority? What might the ACBL do with social media to enable more interest in tournaments? What other gatherings might make sense?

 

We need young leaders to create the marketing connections that will last across generations.

 

Engaging retirees in local club games is too late in the game, and leads to demographics like median age = 68.

[barmar]

I would not start to play in such a boring game... Really, are you telling I had to learn by heart that 50 pages book before I will be able to start to play?

I learned from a 2 or 4 page "cheat sheet" of the common first- and second-round bids -- basically, a simple flow chart.

I started to play completely different way. At first I did not even know that such thing as a bidding system exist. I was told that my partner and I can bid any way we want, but if we would like to have a good results it is better to discuss meaning of our bids. Also we were told very important rule - if my partner and me do have any agreements about certain bid - we had to disclose our agreements. We start to discuss something, but our methods were not playable at all, we were always getting in situation we did not think about. I realize that creating bidding system is a big task.

Sounds like a really tedious way to learn the game -- you're totally floundering for the first few weeks. Like teaching someone to swim by throwing them into the water, and after they nearly drown a few times you show them how to do a proper stroke. On the other hand, you probably have a good appreciation for the general principles, instead of just learning everything by rote. It's kind of like the "New Math" of bridge teaching.