"Bridge is for old people"

[antonylee]

From my personal experience (in France), I think that a few things are fairly effective to get kids to play bridge: clubs in schools, junior tournaments, prizes, etc.

 

I started playing in middle school, where there was a club that would meet one hour per week at lunch time (as a matter of fact, students participating in lunchtime activities had priority at the school cafeteria -- that's why I started :-)), with an oldish professor from the local club (and everything was free of course, who'd have payed to play?). We started by playing minibridge for three years before even hearing about the idea of bidding (though it seems that that approach is receding now), and that was in no way a problem for me (well, I learnt the importance of holding up in NT at that time, for example). There were even a yearly national junior minibridge tournament (including a regional qualifier, etc.) and I remember winning comics there. Also there were some "bridge weeks" during the holidays, with like 2 or 3 hours of bridge per day for a week at the local club, only with juniors. Sure, I was already a bit nerdy at that time but we were easily 15 teenagers from the local area (say South half of Paris suburbs) there.

 

When I went to high school I stopped playing bridge (actually I started playing go then), but restarted when I got into college. Again, there was a club, run (again for free) by two very good players (probably in the top 100 women in France), and that's where I learnt bidding. We were perhaps a dozen players in a university with 1000 students (science majors only), and we set up junior teams to compete in local competitions at a discounted price (or for free), but still eligible to win bottles of champagne or foie gras (that's France after all) or even (rarely) cash prizes (~200$ or so for first place). And there were still activities for juniors, such as pro-ams (though sometimes we would have to take the "pro" side if there were too many "ams" from local high schools) or the national junior pairs and the national junior teams (yay, get crushed by Lorenzini et al.), known for their incredible amounts of free food... Or, for example, in Lyon (second city of France), there is a well-known club run only by juniors, organizing every year a huge tournament (open to all). We would get together the day before and play 2-min-per-board speedball :-)

 

Masterpoints? Who cares... Food and money (and other juniors) makes a junior happy :-)

[y66]

This topic got a lot of discussion when Robert Hartman was "in the well" on bridgewinners earlier this year.

 

I was looking for some data on players by age group and came across this article on the BBO News page.

[the hog]

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.

 

Cell phone ban? is this bad?

Earlier start times? Why would this cater for older people?

 

My take is that many of today's youth are spoiled by wanting instant gratification. hence they like action computer games where you can instantly kill or maim an opponent. Also the current educaion system is western countries has been dumbed down, so many of today's young people lack the intellectual nous to play bridge.

[dwar0123]

My take is that many of today's youth are spoiled by wanting instant gratification. hence they like action computer games where you can instantly kill or maim an opponent. Also the current educaion system is western countries has been dumbed down, so many of today's young people lack the intellectual nous to play bridge.

With so many of your generation so rich in nous and now experience, it is a wonder that any from your generation loses to anyone from another generation.

 

The problem isn't a lack of capacity, it is a lack of interest.

[the hog]

With so many of your generation so rich in nous and now experience, it is a wonder that any from your generation loses to anyone from another generation.

 

The problem isn't a lack of capacity, it is a lack of interest.

 

The best players in the world are still the older players with the exception of the Dutch.

I said the younger generation want instant gratification.They have the intelligence but not the nous to use it.

[mike777]

I guess for starters why do young people play poker or video games?? I dont play either so.....I dont get it....

OTOH I note I do watch much tv with some violence and even with some gambling so......

 

My guess but only a guess is...lots of violence and lots of gambling.

 

 

If bridge can bring back more I mean much more violence and gambling that may bring many into the game.

 

I dont get if we make the hassle over cellphones better that brings many more young into the game but worth the discussion?

do cellphones have something about violence and gambling?

 

fwiw I thought most, most do not use cellphones as a phone but as a computer...tiny computer

[Bbradley62]

Earlier start times? Why would this cater for older people?

Seriously? The schedule for sectionals in my old unit is now single-session events at 10am and 2:30pm on Fridays. You don't think this is catering to retirees, rather than working people (of both lalldonn's generation and mine) who would like/need to work on Friday then play an evening session at the tournament?

[MattieShoe]

Some reasons, off the top of my head

 

1) Perception. It's perceived as an old person's game.

2) Barrier to entry. You can sit down and play poker (albeit badly) right away. With Bridge, it's a slow process from sitting down to playing with any sort of confidence. Point counting, arcane bidding systems, bizrre conventions... Once you get over that hump, it is immensely enjoyable. But getting over that hump is tough.

3) Because a huge amount of it is scheduled around retirees -- during work/school hours. Here, there are occasionally beginner lessons on the weekends and one NLM club game each Saturday. Anything beyond that happens when I'm at work.

4) It's a bit intimidating for a rank novice to sit down with people who know what they're doing.

5) Cumulative ranking system like master points doesn't reflect skill very well. People like more immediate feedback. This is probably why I'm currently addicted to the robot tournaments... :-)

 

Chess servers would be an obvious place to look for new players. They'll enjoy the challenge. The other one that comes to mind is board game geeks. They already enjoy the social aspect...

[mike777]

barriers to entry...geez Porter needs to win the nobel/econ/marketing prize now ..please...

 

I note most of these points are barriers to entry but not really

 

masterpoints are a true barrier to entry.

 

1) everyone says mp are silly

 

2) 99.9% are willing to pay for them.

 

AND THAT IS OK.

[mr1303]

As a player who still gets asked "So when do you graduate from university", I can confirm that the Young Chelsea Bridge Club is one of, if not the, most welcoming bridge clubs to young players.

 

You can get taken to the cleaners a bit there though if you haven't been playing for very long. It is a high standard of play (for club bridge).

[Zelandakh]

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 am certainly no prodigy but this is something I did without giving it much thought as being unusual at the time. I had 2 books with 2 different bidding systems. I liked some parts of one system and some from the other - so I sat down and worked out how to get the bits I wanted to work together. I think this kind of process is actually pretty normal for children that enjoy strategy games and problem solving - there is always a better way of doing things!

[the saint]

Simple reason why there aren't more younger people playing. Lack of exposure. What proportion of the kids today actually get exposed to the game in any form through parents, schools, universities, friends, the media?

 

Here in the UK it is in a handful of schools thanks to one or two teachers - there is no formal teaching program and schools aren't generally keen on cards as they fear it promotes gambling (an issue to be addressed). There is next to no media exposure. Some learn through parents, but again, no more than a handful.

 

There was one man who had the ability to get the game across to a mass audience - Bill Gates. If Windows had bundled with it a free cheap Bridge game (like the crappy solitaire thing), it would solve the exposure issue at a stroke. It wouldn't have to be good, it would just have to pique the interest.

 

People have talked about pyramids and the drop off you get at every level. Well if we are starting with hundreds or thousands of people being exposed, it is only natural we will end up with only a handful of players actually playing at the sharp end. We need to expose MILLIONS to it.

[paua]

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]".

 

Kia ora

Well, that's because the game is run by old white people for old white people. There are no youngish people on NZ Bridge committees, bringing new ideas. If they did, they would be scorned by the old school who are quite happy with the status quo, revere it even.

I think the lack of youth players is because you need a critical mass to get going. Young people playing, and doing well, would be role models for new youths coming into the room. But the percentage under say 30 is just so few.

 

I taught juggling for years, and originally it was all just geeky young men. Eventually a tomboy or two started coming, or brother and sister, girlfriends, and they changed the atmosphere and subconsciously gave approval to other young women. An old person joined the group and I made a special effort to keep them, help them fit in, and then we get a few more ... (Same probably for other ethnicities, and also for social class.)

 

Sadly, the majority of bridge players like the group to be well-off, well-dressed, retired white folk, preferably playing the same system as them.

[paua]

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.

 

A better analogy is learning chess openings. Kids learning chess will definitely create their own systems, experiment, copy. But they can get playing chess without having to study and memorise openings, whereas bridge requires a lot of system knowledge just to play with a partner.

 

regards

[phil_20686]

To my mind, people who say that the complexity of learning puts people off have it exactly backwards. Most young people who get interested in bridge do it because its complex.

 

You start of playing games like draughts, chinese chequers, Settlers of Catan, monopoly, warhamer etc. Then you realise that these games have limited space for personal development, as they are all basically solved games. Bridge, chess, go etc have the attraction that they are basically impossible to solve as a player. There is not an optimal strategy, and you can always improve as a player. If someone beats you, you always could have played better.

 

A similar thing applies in computer games. People start of playing relatively simple games, and go on to more compex ones.

 

Its basically the same impulse that drives people from pop music to classical music as they get older. Pop music is pretty simple, but sooner or later, if you are a music lover, you get board with simple and you want something more complex. With card/board games, you only get to want something more complex by playing the simple games and getting board with them.

[olegru]

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.

I guess it is a main point. We main purpose of ACBL policy is to make grandmas happy for expencies of younger people.

Probably it is not too surprising to have label "Bridge is for old people" after all.

[broze]

There was one man who had the ability to get the game across to a mass audience - Bill Gates. If Windows had bundled with it a free cheap Bridge game (like the crappy solitaire thing), it would solve the exposure issue at a stroke. It wouldn't have to be good, it would just have to pique the interest.

 

I have to admit, this never occurred to me but now you mention it I'm amazed that he hasn't done just this! One of the great things about bridge is the social element (in my top three reasons for why I prefer it to chess) and this wouldn't be present in such a game, but like you say it doesn't need to be good. Perhaps the idea HAS occurred to him but he is hesitant to do so because that would make the game *too* mainstream.

 

To my mind, people who say that the complexity of learning puts people off have it exactly backwards. Most young people who get interested in bridge do it because its complex.You start of playing games like draughts, chinese chequers, Settlers of Catan, monopoly, warhamer etc. Then you realise that these games have limited space for personal development, as they are all basically solved games. Bridge, chess, go etc have the attraction that they are basically impossible to solve as a player. There is not an optimal strategy, and you can always improve as a player.

 

Complexity is certainly what keeps people playing the game - there's absolutely no scope to get bored or grow tired of it! However, I do think that complexity is at least a factor in keeping (young) people away. In chess you only *really* need to know a very few things: the objective - to capture the opponent's king and how each piece moves. After that you can almost teach yourself. The cardplay in bridge is similar in that you can learn on your own, but the bidding you need to be taught (whether by literature or another person.) You can play chess online with a very rudimentary understanding, get beat over and over but still learn. With bridge, young people will play pickup bridge online, get abused by Turkish 'experts' for making a ridiculous bid, and give up. I know people this has happened to. The bonus with chess (if you can call it that) is that your opponent isn't going to shout at you for making a bad move - he'll just win.

 

As for me, I have to say when I started playing the game I knew the stereotype that it was a game for older people but I didn't realise how true it was! When I wanted to start getting competitive it surprised me a little that there were so few young people on the scene. I am regularly the youngest person at my club by about 20 years and am probaly 30 years below the median. I recently played a green-pointed congress and was the youngest player in the event out of about 200 pairs. I was quite taken aback.

[billw55]

Complexity may play a part, but I agree that exposure is a much bigger factor. Compare the game of Go. It has very simple rules for such a complex game, and it is quite easy to have an absolute beginner playing within ten minutes. Sometimes bypassers ask us, is it easy to play? We reply, it is easy to play, but difficult to play well. I don't think I could honestly tell a nonplayer that bridge is easy to play.

 

Yet, Go is still very obscure in this country: I am quite sure that far more people in the USA will recognize bridge by name or visually, than will recognize Go.

[Vampyr]

If bridge can bring back more I mean much more violence and gambling that may bring many into the game.

 

Definitely in favour of more violence in bridge. And sex.

 

With card/board games, you only get to want something more complex by playing the simple games and getting board with them.

 

Can you fail to get "board" with board games? Isn't it a requirement?

[Zelandakh]

I have to admit, this never occurred to me but now you mention it I'm amazed that he hasn't done just this! One of the great things about bridge is the social element (in my top three reasons for why I prefer it to chess) and this wouldn't be present in such a game, but like you say it doesn't need to be good. Perhaps the idea HAS occurred to him but he is hesitant to do so because that would make the game *too* mainstream.

 

Bill Gates was interested in making money and keeping Microsoft's dominant position by working out what the "next big thing" will be. It has (apparently) turned out to be search engines and mobile devices and it is safe to say that Microsoft did not maintain their position in either direction. If Bill Gates thought there was money in including a bridge program with Windows then I am confident he would have done it. It would have meshed well with their Game Zone project too. The simple truth is that bridge computers are just not ready for this yet and bridge is too small of a market to justify their developing such a program.

 

 

Complexity is certainly what keeps people playing the game - there's absolutely no scope to get bored or grow tired of it! However, I do think that complexity is at least a factor in keeping (young) people away. In chess you only *really* need to know a very few things: the objective - to capture the opponent's king and how each piece moves. After that you can almost teach yourself. The cardplay in bridge is similar in that you can learn on your own, but the bidding you need to be taught (whether by literature or another person.) You can play chess online with a very rudimentary understanding, get beat over and over but still learn. With bridge, young people will play pickup bridge online, get abused by Turkish 'experts' for making a ridiculous bid, and give up. I know people this has happened to. The bonus with chess (if you can call it that) is that your opponent isn't going to shout at you for making a bad move - he'll just win.

 

Once you know a form of whist, bridge is not really complex at all. Not in the sense you mean of getting started anyway. Taking your chess analogy, you can play chess knowing how the pieces move, sure; but there is no way you can ever reach a high level without studying theory - openings, endings, middlegame themes, etc. Opening theory is basically the chess equivalent of bidding theory. I can teach someone how to bid in a basic way in a day, indeed have done so and proceeded to put the newly taught player into a League game on the same day. I think it would be almost impossible for me to teach someone how to play the Dragon variation in a day to a point where they could take part in a chess League game and have any chance at all.

 

Similarly, do you think Bob Hamman is likely to learn a whole new class of ending now. Surely he has seen pretty much every theme there is to see at some point. What complexity is there left aside from new ideas in bidding theory, most of which are banned in the majority of competitions anyway? So I can see scope to become bored with bridge but if you ever reach that point you are already a world class player and probably want to continue for the competition rather than the complexity.

 

Incidentally, you may think that it is different when you lose at chess but when you play in a team this is not always the case. I am reminded of a time as a child when playing against the best team in our league. All of their players won quickly but I hung on and eventually forced a won ending. Directly after the game I was amused to hear the opposing Captain say to my opponent "How could you lose to him?" There was clearly some more to follow too but they moved away and I missed what they said. So yes, you can take some abuse in chess too, albeit less without the anonymity of the internet.

 

 

As for me, I have to say when I started playing the game I knew the stereotype that it was a game for older people but I didn't realise how true it was! When I wanted to start getting competitive it surprised me a little that there were so few young people on the scene. I am regularly the youngest person at my club by about 20 years and am probaly 30 years below the median. I recently played a green-pointed congress and was the youngest player in the event out of about 200 pairs. I was quite taken aback.

When I started playing I had no idea at all that it might be considered a game for older people. Indeed the basic rules have many elements which are very appealing to young geeky types. When you find out the bidding is sending information it is like a code to be cracked. Find the optimal information exchange. Then you learn about preempts and you want to be able to open destructively on as many hands as possible. Then refine this to the most effective ways of being destructive. Then you realise that your own methods are equally vulnerable to such tactics and need to find the best way of countering. It is like cryptography with different meta-levels but with a reward at the end of it. On the other hand, playing SAYC with a 70 year old stranger in an environment that looks down on someone turning up in the latest youth fashion and accessing their mobile between rounds is somewhat less exciting for the average teenager.

[billw55]

Taking your chess analogy, you can play chess knowing how the pieces move, sure; but there is no way you can ever reach a high level without studying theory - openings, endings, middlegame themes, etc. Opening theory is basically the chess equivalent of bidding theory.

The big difference here is the system restrictions in bridge. A comparable situation in chess would be if the national organization(s) pursue a policy that basically says:

 

1) the majority of our paying members prefer certain openings;

2) they get cranky when other openings are played against them;

3) ah, we will keep them happy by protecting them with a rule;

4) ergo, openings outside their comfort zone are disallowed;

5) the remaining players find themselves restricted to their opponents' favored openings.

 

This would be absurd in chess. The players would laugh uproariously at such a proposal. If the USCF enforced it anyway, droves would quit. But in bridge, the policy is preexisting; so instead this may happen slowly, gradually, spread out, and so is not noticed.

 

grrr, I just can't help ranting at system restrictions.

[gwnn]

billw55 maybe this thread would be interesting to you:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/40548-chess-openings-vs-bridge-bidding-systems/

 

There were some very good points made whether this analogy stands up.

[fromageGB]

It is for old people ; as said before it is run by old people with strong emphasis on deterring youth. No phones, no T-shirts, no innovation. But the main reason is that technology has made it obsolete. Bridge is essentially a pastime, and the number of recreational options available has exploded.

 

Intelligent people in work now work longer. I used to finish in time to go home, have dinner, and go out for the evening. My son now gets home much later and would not have the time, had he the inclination. Maybe if bridge is to survive, it needs to have a perpetual scoring system so people can go to the club for an hour or so when they want, drop out any time, get the results by phone(mobile) alert when the computer has analysed the period they played. But the shrinking size of the playing population will never allow it. Maybe online bridge will be the only medium term survivor.

 

Long term, bridge is dead. The few who take it up will no longer find sufficient like-minded fellows to form a viable club. They will adopt other social pastimes. The fewer that play, even fewer will be new people that start. I don't think it matters. I will be dead, too.

[Antrax]

Maybe if bridge is to survive, it needs to have a perpetual scoring system so people can go to the club for an hour or so when they want, drop out any time, get the results by phone(mobile) alert when the computer has analysed the period they played. But the shrinking size of the playing population will never allow it. Maybe online bridge will be the only medium term survivor.

I don't know if it's this acute, but such an option would be most welcome from my perspective. It's difficult to find 3-4 consecutive free hours.

[billw55]

billw55 maybe this thread would be interesting to you:

http://www.bridgebas...idding-systems/

 

There were some very good points made whether this analogy stands up.

Indeed, I reread that thread and still find it interesting. The post I made near the end of it still sums up my thoughts on the subject. It also agrees with Josh's position that the ACBL tailors its policies to its older members, despite its sometimes-stated desire to bring in more youth.