"Bridge is for old people"

[Cyberyeti]

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.

Of course, the older members have the money.

[barmar]

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.

But that problem should affect all pastimes, shouldn't it? Is chess declining as much as bridge has? Poker has gotten more popular, hasn't it? Is that because it works well on television?

 

Bridge takes more time to learn than most other games, so it's hard for the "instant gratification" generation to pick it up.

[CSGibson]

Atlanta Jr bridge appears to be doing fairly well, indicating to me that the game can prosper in a younger crowd if more emphasis is given to doing so.

 

I play because I loved the game. We played around a kitchen table, and played crappy bridge for 15 years. Then I moved 2000 miles away, and started a job as a bank teller. I was talking to a lady who made lots of deposits of $1 bills, and asked if she did yard sales or something. It turns out that she owned a bridge club, and when she learned that I knew the game, she invited me to play. This was around 10 years ago, when I was 23. Despite playing forever, I didn't know simple conventions like stayman, or negative doubles. It was a sharp learning curve.

 

Even as a younger player, I have been playing for 25 years, and learned the game as a child. Anything this complex, it probably takes learning as a child to really spark interest - as an adult, you have to whittle down your interests much more to accommodate job, family, etc.

[Mhoram]

I'd guess that the complexity of bridge does draw many of the young people who play it today (it drew me, though I'm not that young at 43). (I played Texas Hold-em for a while, but online, that's just math.) But when bridge was the social game played in kitchens and living rooms everywhere, I suspect few of those people were after the complexity. On the two occasions that I've played rubber bridge with older social players, I think Stayman would have surprised them. They didn't discuss systems or conventions, and pretty much just told each other what their bids meant. It was kind of like people playing chess who know the basic movements but don't know castling or promotion, or that it's important to control the center of the board. They could have fun playing each other, but they'd get destroyed by serious players.

 

So the complexity may continue to draw the geeky minority, but it won't bring back a majority playing for social reasons. My guess is that was lost when the 60s generation consciously discarded many of their parents' customs as being too square. Since bridge was their parents' favorite game, and it even had associations with country clubs and the like, it was rejected along with formal dress, hats, and the Charleston.

 

I grew up playing lots of card games: euchre, pinochle, canasta, rummy, and more. I never learned bridge because my parents didn't know it. Most other games we could learn to play by reading Hoyle, but on bridge, the rules and the scoring don't even start to tell you how to play the game. I tried reading through it a few times over the years, but I'd get lost in the details and never get a feeling for what the game was about. That was the case until I picked up a couple of Goren's books at a library sale. He was entertaining enough to draw me into the game and convince me I wanted to learn it. Then I found the ACBL's tutorial program and discovered that a lot had changed since Goren's time. Oh well. They were still good reading.

 

I've been playing against Bridge Baron for a few years now, and holding my own against it, but the thought of playing in a tournament is still daunting. I'm solid on SAYC, and even on some extras like Extended Stayman and RKCB, but I don't have a partner, so what if I get paired with someone who pays a strong club or a weak 1NT? I'll be lost. And there's all the stuff that doesn't happen on the computer: alerts, announcements, how to use the boards and bidding boxes and so on. It's like there's a whole new game to learn before taking that step. I'll do it one of these days, but I'm leery.

 

Anyway, there's a lot to learn compared to most games, for the player coming to the game cold without the opportunity to grow up watching people play.

[Vampyr]

I don't have a partner, so what if I get paired with someone who pays a strong club or a weak 1NT?

 

If you ring up a local club and tell them you need a partner, they will find someone suitable. You can't find out until you get your feet wet! Try a novice game or supervised duplicate, and you won't find it's a huge shock to the system.

[wyman]

I'll make a few observations:

 

1) I live in central NJ, in New Brunswick (home of Rutgers U), and work in Princeton (home of Princeton U). This region of the country (NY/NJ/Phil) should be like bridge Mecca, and in many senses it is. And I live and work in the towns of the best universities in the state. Academics and students abound. And, there are a huge number of games in my area. The catch? They are all during the day.

 

Let's say 5pm on a Tuesday rolls around and I am able to leave work (and find a partner). I work 30 minutes south of where I live. I have to drive over an hour and a half (and beg them over the phone to sign me up) in horrible rush hour traffic to get to a game north of where I live that starts at 6:30 (for a 1 hour drive home), or an hour south of work for a 7:00 game in the other direction for an hour and 15 minute drive home.

 

Evening games within a 30 minute drive of either work or home? There is only 1, and it's on Wednesday.

 

2) Cell phones were commented on earlier. I have no problem with the no phones (or at least phones off) in NABC+ events rule, but I have a huge problem with the fees for holding your phone at the site. In Philadelphia, it was $2 for one phone, $3 for 2, and $5 for 3. And this was for one session.

 

First of all, why does the marginal cost increase for the 3rd phone? I'm already mad I have to pay you at all, and now you're infuriating me with a nonsensical pricing scheme.

 

Second of all, we had a foursome with 4 phones that all fit in one ziploc, and the guy told us that we could keep them all together and "well, 2, 3, 5, ..., just charge them 8." I told him we'd go ahead and just pay for 2 and 2. I don't see why he thought that the pricing was Fibonacci (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I didn't ask what he'd charge me for 5 phones...), but maybe he was Rain Man or something.

 

Third, half* the field just turns their phones off and keeps them in their pockets/purses/etc anyway. This is anecdotal ("dude whatever just put it in your pocket but turn it off", "that's what cargo pants are for", ...) but supported by the number of cell phone penalties given out even to top pros of late. They kept it in their pocket but forgot to turn it off.

* half is my hyperbolic way of saying "much of"

 

Fourth, can't you just penalize the offenders heavily? That's effectively what's happening anyway (see (3)), except the honest people have to pay money.

 

Fifth, seriously, I already paid you for the morning session, and now you're charging me again for the evening session? Same ticket, same bag, is it really a big deal?

 

Sixth, and possibly most infuriatingly, is it really supposed to make me feel better that you're giving the money to charity? Now it's like "well, we really didn't need to charge you, since we're not keeping the money anyway, but we are going to go ahead and charge you anyway, since we're dicks, but we'll make you feel like the dick for complaining, since it's going to charity."

 

3) I truly think that the whole "the youth want instant gratification" argument is false. There is a youtube video of a guy counting to 100,000. The video is 77 hours long. What I'm saying is: the youth are finding ways to do large projects, however inane they are. Maybe they learn to play poker well (which takes a lot of work). Some of them take courses on coursera. Some have built their own iphone apps. Some have played countless hours of angry birds (which actually takes an incredible amount of time to do). Point being -- they are finding things to devote themselves to, not all of which are about instant gratification. And arguing that poker or some of these video games are instantly gratifying is roughly the same as arguing that bridge is -- since you get to win or lose tricks, hands, rubbers, whatever.

 

I'll stop here since I fear this is turning into a rant...

[Vampyr]

2) Cell phones were commented on earlier. I have no problem with the no phones (or at least phones off) in NABC+ events rule, but I have a huge problem with the fees for holding your phone at the site. In Philadelphia, it was $2 for one phone, $3 for 2, and $5 for 3. And this was for one session.

 

Wow, that is scandalous. I have never, in the UK or Europe, been charged for leaving my phone out of the playing room.

 

Some of them take courses on coursera.

 

What is coursera?

 

I guess the Bridge Club of Central NJ is too far for you? They are in Bridgewater and have loads of games.

[barmar]

I'd guess that the complexity of bridge does draw many of the young people who play it today (it drew me, though I'm not that young at 43). (I played Texas Hold-em for a while, but online, that's just math.) But when bridge was the social game played in kitchens and living rooms everywhere, I suspect few of those people were after the complexity. On the two occasions that I've played rubber bridge with older social players, I think Stayman would have surprised them. They didn't discuss systems or conventions, and pretty much just told each other what their bids meant. It was kind of like people playing chess who know the basic movements but don't know castling or promotion, or that it's important to control the center of the board. They could have fun playing each other, but they'd get destroyed by serious players.

My parents played social bridge, but I didn't learn from them. I didn't learn bridge until a few years after I graduated from college and was living away from home. A few years ago my mother decided to take bridge lessons at her country club. She complained to me that she didn't like the transfers that he was teaching them to use -- she couldn't understand bidding things you don't have.

 

I knew from that that if I ever tried to play with her, neither of us would find it a pleasant experience.

 

I don't have a partner, so what if I get paired with someone who pays a strong club or a weak 1NT?

It won't happen. People who show up with no partner are mostly like you -- they play standard. If someone is insistent on playing unusual things, they will find a compatible partner to play it with them. Most of these players also know how to play standard, even if it's not their regular preference. So if their regular partner is unavailable, and they show up to play with another single, they'll accomodate you.

[wyman]

I guess the Bridge Club of Central NJ is too far for you? They are in Bridgewater and have loads of games.

 

It is quite a trip, especially in rush hour traffic, but they do have games a few nights a week. It is not quite the hour and half+ up to Essex, but you still have to leave an hour and change at rush hour. I also have a sour taste in my mouth (though I later met the owner and he is a nice guy), as I showed up for a published game (after making plans with a friend from out of town and driving the hour and change) that was apparently cancelled. We weren't the only ones who showed up either. I scrambled to find a game that started even later and drove another 40 minutes to show up only a board late to that game, so it all worked out. In any case, keeping a website up to date, for example, would help with such things. Aversion to -- or failure to use, for whatever reason -- technology that the younger generation finds standard is perhaps another reason that kids are unlikely to take up the pastime.

 

edit: to be fair, bccnj actually has a fine webpage with an updated monthly calendar, and this must have been a one-off type thing. I still stand by comment about clubs in general not having a good enough online presence and about this discouraging young people.

[Bbradley62]

I guess the Bridge Club of Central NJ is too far for you? They are in Bridgewater and have loads of games.

As Wyman says, they play at noon M-F and only have an evening game on Thursday. "Loads of" weekday noon games are not helpful to the vast majority of working-age players.

http://bridgecnj.com/

[barmar]

2) Cell phones were commented on earlier. I have no problem with the no phones (or at least phones off) in NABC+ events rule, but I have a huge problem with the fees for holding your phone at the site. In Philadelphia, it was $2 for one phone, $3 for 2, and $5 for 3. And this was for one session.

 

First of all, why does the marginal cost increase for the 3rd phone? I'm already mad I have to pay you at all, and now you're infuriating me with a nonsensical pricing scheme.

That is weird. I suspect they weren't even thinking very hard, and just decided that 5 seemed like a good round number.

 

These are all token amounts to me, so I 'm not bothered by it too much. Going to an NABC costs around $200/day for travel expenses + entry fees, what's another $4? And the fact that all the money goes to charity avoids accusations that greed is involved.

[Bbradley62]

These are all token amounts to me, so I 'm not bothered by it too much. Going to an NABC costs around $200/day for travel expenses + entry fees, what's another $4?

What is a token amount to you very well may not be a token amount to everyone else. Classic example of someone of one demographic thinking that the rules are good because they don't bother his friends. Kinda makes the point about ACBL being run by old people for old people.

 

Someone Wyman's age who lives in New Brunswick probably took the train to Philly and stayed with friends, and therefore probably spent much less that $200/day.

[Vampyr]

As Wyman says, they play at noon M-F and only have an evening game on Thursday. "Loads of" weekday noon games are not helpful to the vast majority of working-age players.

http://bridgecnj.com/

 

I see. I was mistaken.

[barmar]

And no one is forcing him to use this service. I know plenty of people who give their cellphones to a friend/spouse to hold on to. If I'm staying in the host hotel, I usually leave it in my room. If you drove to the playing site, you can leave it in your car.

[wyman]

These are all token amounts to me, so I 'm not bothered by it too much. Going to an NABC costs around $200/day for travel expenses + entry fees, what's another $4?

 

When you're a student, you sleep 2-4 in a hotel room that costs -- and I'll say we splurged -- $100 a night. Often times, you got lucky and crashed at someone's grandma's or aunt's house. For the LV NABC, I remember that most of the crew stayed at the Sahara, and that cost like $30/nt. We've played in Cleveland regionals and slept 4 to a room @ like $70/nt.

 

Entry fees are $20/session, but you get the junior discount that makes it like $10/session at NABCs. Some places you pay like $5-8/sess at regionals. Others students play free.

 

Say 3 sessions @ 10, and a hotel room for $25-30, though. You can easily do meals for $30/day, often less since you're finding a free (or $2) bagel somewhere for breakfast, going to Chipotle for $8 for lunch, and having dinner at Fridays for like $12. This still leaves you $8 for a couple beers, but you don't need that, since the older guys from your area who know you're dirt poor buy you a beer or two at the bar after the evening session.

 

You only go to NABCs you can drive to, so you split gas costs -- negligible. And sometimes you're lucky enough to be playing in a Flight B/C "major" event, so you get a little stipend from your district.

 

Total that up. It's far less than $100 a day. No, I don't think it's reasonable that I have to shell out $4/day to check my phone. Especially not when you have people who are getting PAID to play the game at the table next to you with the cell phone in their jacket pocket.

 

---

 

I now have a job and do pay closer to what you suggest to go play in tournaments, and yes, $4/day is negligible. But just because it's a small amount doesn't mean that it's right. And if I'm lucky enough to be there for 5 days, seriously I've shelled out $20 to the phone police. I give enough money to charity, and I do so on my own terms. Charging me at the NABC to be one of the upstanding people that doesn't skirt a stupid rule that really doesn't inhibit cheating anyway, and then telling me not to complain because the money is going to charity -- that's insulting.

[wyman]

And no one is forcing him to use this service. I know plenty of people who give their cellphones to a friend/spouse to hold on to. If I'm staying in the host hotel, I usually leave it in my room. If you drove to the playing site, you can leave it in your car.

 

Young people who have no money don't stay in the host hotel, lol, nor do they pay $30/day to park at the host hotel. So on my short lunch break, now I have to walk 6 blocks to my hotel room, go to lunch -- which is inevitably near the playing site, back to the hotel, and back to the playing site for the afternoon. And do it all again on the dinner break.

 

It's wildly inconvenient.

 

edit: nor do they have spouses, nor friends who decided to tag along to spend 4-5 days at a bridge tournament but not play.

[wyman]

Someone Wyman's age who lives in New Brunswick probably took the train to Philly and stayed with friends, and therefore probably spent much less that $200/day.

 

I personally probably spent around 200 (but I did take the train), but I also have a real job, whereas some of my teammates during this tournament were still in school. I'm sympathetic to their plight.

 

Really I'm only on the "poor students" thing because barmar mentioned that $4 was a drop in the bucket. The real reason I'm mad about the cell phone money is because I think it's ludicrous to charge anyone anything for this "service." I don't even think I was charged to check my cell phone the last time I was at a strip club...

 

edit: errr "gentleman's club"

[Bbradley62]

Same motivation for my reaction... As a much younger man, I took the train from Princeton to the DC NABC and stayed with friends. Did the same 8 months later for the Montreal NABC... and had similar experiences to you sharing rooms many-ways at several others... 1985 and 1991 Las Vegas come to mind... I'm BarMar's age, but I remember when I a "poor student". Hell, sometimes I remember that more clearly than I remember what happened yesterday.

[wyman]

To get somewhat back on track, JB's thread about the deterioration of respect for the rules spawned a discussion about the laws not actually governing club games in practice:

The trouble is that for people who like to play by the rules, this sort of attitude is not a pleasant way to spend a Wednesday evening, but decidedly unpleasant.

 

Agreed, which is why I haven't played a club game in almost 20 years. But there aren't enough people in this category for most club managers/owners/directors to risk losing their "regulars" by changing the club-game atmosphere.

 

Exactly, which is why these players congregate at tournaments.

 

This is simple supply and demand, club operators provide what their customers want, tournament operators provide what those players want. It just turns out that the two sets of wants differ somewhat.

 

Although as I said, I wonder what response clubs would get if they offered an occasional game designated as competitive/serious. Even once a month would be a good start. What is there to lose, if it doesn't draw enough players you can just stop doing it.

 

If we -- for a second -- take this as truth, and if we posit that young people are more interested in playing the game competitively than socially, we might conclude that younger people would be more apt to play tournament bridge than club bridge. One problem then is that traveling to tournaments is cost prohibitive, and another is that one learns the game, ostensibly, by playing in clubs. But if the good tournament players are abandoning clubs (because they are not fun) for tournaments, the younger players will be "learning" from only the fuddy-duddies in an environment not conducive to learning or to having fun.

[wyman]

Same motivation for my reaction... As a much younger man, I took the train from Princeton to the DC NABC and stayed with friends. Did the same 8 months later for the Montreal NABC... and had similar experiences to you sharing rooms many-ways at several others... 1985 and 1991 Las Vegas come to mind... I'm BarMar's age, but I remember when I a "poor student". Hell, sometimes I remember that more clearly than I remember what happened yesterday.

 

Yeah my NABC's in school were:

 

Detroit (I was at Michigan, no hotel)

Las Vegas (I was a winning poker player, so I went for 10 days and splurged, but friends stayed at the Sahara)

Boston (stayed with BunnyGo's parents)

Houston (NAP's -- got stipend from the district which i used for airfare, and also had Marriott points from a summer job so used them for a hotel a half-mile or so from the site)

DC (stayed in friend of friend's apartment on the living room floor [won GNTs though. Maybe I should go back to floor-sleeping...])

 

so really spent nothing on hotels at NABCs in grad school.

 

And then I graduated and my next NABC was Louisville and I had a job. Also Louisville had a sane schedule and I was able to work from 8a-12p and play the 1p/7p sessions so I didn't have to use a lot of vacation. But that's a gripe for another post.

[barmar]

edit: nor do they have spouses, nor friends who decided to tag along to spend 4-5 days at a bridge tournament but not play.

What about friends playing in non-NABC+ events? Are they not worth socializing with? On day 2, do you shun anyone who didn't qualify?

[wyman]

What about friends playing in non-NABC+ events? Are they not worth socializing with? On day 2, do you shun anyone who didn't qualify?

 

My experience has been that we travel as a team and tend to play team events. Rarely have we played pairs. [Also, I am not that good, so my phone is usually only an issue on day 1 of those rare pairs events.]

 

edit: and no, the bridge players i consort with would pretty much never opt not to play an nabc+ event if they had the option.

[barmar]

You need a GF. :)

[wyman]

You need a GF. :)

 

http://i.imgur.com/HJPDg.jpg

[Bbradley62]

If we -- for a second -- take this as truth, and if we posit that young people are more interested in playing the game competitively than socially, we might conclude that younger people would be more apt to play tournament bridge than club bridge. One problem then is that traveling to tournaments is cost prohibitive, and another is that one learns the game, ostensibly, by playing in clubs. But if the good tournament players are abandoning clubs (because they are not fun) for tournaments, the younger players will be "learning" from only the fuddy-duddies in an environment not conducive to learning or to having fun.

And this is how much of the world has been for at least the past 30 years. When I was playing two club games a week in NJ, the best regulars at those games were generally folks who would place in overalls in Flight B at a Regional. Yes, the Flight A players made some appearances, but very few of them were regulars.