Friends of Fred

[Winstonm]

It is apparent from his willingness to FREELY share his ideas, knowledge, time, and expertise that Fred Gitelman is in a class by himself when it comes to the expert community. I have played this game for many years and have never come across a world-class player so free with his time and energy. It is apparent that Fred has a love for the game of bridge and a willingness to share that love with us peons for the betterment of all. For all the players who enjoy this stimulating game, I would like to thank you, Fred.

[kgr]

Interesting to see he is answering some Bridge related questions on this forum. Apparantly he found some more time.

Maybe he should stop playing bridge, so that he has even more time to share his ideas. <_<

[hrothgar]

Comment the first: I'm a big fan of what Fred is doing...

 

Comment the second: Regardless of what Fred and other bridge pro's do, we are NEVER going to see bridge return to the glory days when the card game was a major cultural institution

 

Comment the third: I for one wouldn't want to see this type of ressurgence...

 

To expand somewhat:

 

Brideg used to be a phenomenally popular game in the United States. The game's popularity was a function of a number of factors, however, the most important were:

 

A. The social / cultural climate.

 

1. Individuals had much more free time

2. Individuals had many fewer options for recreation. No computers. No video games. Very limited choices regarding TV/radio. Travel was very expensive.

3. Women had very limited professional options

 

B. Culbertson

 

Culbertson was a phenomenally effective promoter who took advantage of a unique market opportunity. However, even if Culbertson rose from the dead, he wouldn't be able to rebuild bridge to its former glory. The social dynamics have changed too greatly.

 

From my perspective, the ACBL's biggest problem is that they refuse to admit defeat. The ACBL needs to recognize that bridge will not continue as a form of entertainment for the great unwashed masses... Efforts to promote bridge as a mass market form of entertainment are doomed to fail.

 

To the extent that bridge has a future, its lies in targetting appropriate market niches. There are people out in the world looking for challenging / complex games.

Regulators need to understand that these players represent the future of the game. Look at bridge players under the age of 40. What percentage of them come from "technical" professions - Computer programmers, stock analysts, mathematicians, etc?

 

I think that there is a very real danger that the regulators are going to kill the game of bridge. The ACBL is continually trying to dumb down the game chasing afer a vanishing demographic group. In doing so, they significantly reduce the game's appeal to what should be their new core market.

 

This is all perfectly understandable. A 'mass-market" game can support a much larger institutional heirarchy than a niche game. Still, its depressing to watch...

[Free]

I absolutely love it when proven-to-be worldclass players share their knowledge! It's very interesting, and sometimes lets you see the game from another perspective (which improves your game).

 

However, I don't think it helps much to reach the great mass of players. A lot of players just want to enjoy their game, don't care about mistakes they make, aren't interested in improving their skills.

 

New talented players on the other hand might become absolute top players tnx to such advice, because they're interested in it, and they'll remember. But I don't think it will go much further than that. Note that this might be enough to get the country back on top ofcourse, if you can create a few top players, it's already enough <_<

[Winstonm]

From my perspective, the ACBL's biggest problem is that they refuse to admit defeat. The ACBL needs to recognize that bridge will not continue as a form of entertainment for the great unwashed masses... Efforts to promote bridge as a mass market form of entertainment are doomed to fail.

 

This quote and the rest of this answer is totally awesome and I think dead-on right. This whole piece should be forwarded to the ACBL before the entire game sinks into oblivion here in the U.S.

 

WinstonM

[luke warm]

i think the acbl is far more interested in quantity than quality... i believe they're perfectly happy with the status quo, meaning they don't mind having a tiny minority of excellent players, and allowing these (but only these!!) players to play the game in the way it should be played, while (as richard says) dumbing it down for the vast majority of players, in order to gain mass appeal

 

they know that the more complicated they allow the game to become, via less restrictive rules, the less appealing it will be to those who (the vast majority) merely seek a diversion... and it's by far this majority that pays the bills

 

i'm torn on this... on the one hand i believe there has to be a governing authority that caters, as much as possible, to the majority of its membership... on the other hand, i believe restrictive rules will, in the long run, least serve this same membership

 

richard's solution seems to be to remove restrictive rules (laudable goal), but at a cost the acbl may not be willing to pay... i think there can be a phase in period, and it's possible this is happening already... the internet has caused a resurrgence in the bridge playing population, and these players are seeing and learning that bridge is much more than just a way to have an entertaining evening (though it certainly is that)

 

as in any population, the young eventually replace the old... as this happens in bridge, i believe the things we would like to see happen will happen... it's hard to see movement though, in real time... only in hindsight will we be able to see whether or not it occured

 

i guess i'm saying that the population in the universe of acbl members is changing from the old to the new... change is usually slow, but usually sure... so if the aim is to build membership while making the game more challenging (via less restrictive rules), the only real way to do that is to wait until the population changes from what it is to what it will be

 

many experts see this problem and are doing a lot about it, and fred is definitely at the forefront of this movement... i think it's working, i just can't prove it :)

[Double !]

Winstonm:

 

So glad that you opened this thread. Wish something like it had been opened eons ago.

 

I have no idea whether or not Fred's time and contributions will result in a resurrection in the game of Bridge, but I'll say this. I bet it will increase the level of play of the average or above average player who reads and/or posts in this forum. Personally, I look forward to Fred's contributions to forum discussions to the point where I initially go to any place where I see that Fred has posted. Please, Fred, don't stop now! I so look forward to both his suggestions and, mostly, to his expanations of his reasoning for his suggestions. I am often more interested in how top players reason in order to solve problems at the table than in the actual recommendations. Something akin to feeding a starving person versus teaching the person how to feed him/herself. I only wish that he posted more often. How does one thank Fred enough? I periodically write "Have you thanked Fred today?" on my profile.

 

I grew up and started to play Bridge in the Boston area during the time, mid-60s to mid-70s, when Bridge was expanding significantly (aka: "cultural institution"). A number of the new, talented young players were students at some top-ranked institute with a large domed main building that is located along side some river there. (This institution even had its own bridge club: don't know if it still does.) Local bridge clubs were flourishing including some that had games every day of the week and twice on Sunday (literally). Even then, there seemed to be few good players who would take the time to help out less talented but aspiring players. Then came the advent of professional players, not without some debate. Now, unless you were good friends with a top player, you also had to pay to improve your game. Books could only take one so far. Contrast this with BBO which is still essentially a free site unless one elects to play in a $1.00 game, which has a forum where players of all levels of skill and experience can freely ask questions and share information, and a world class player (and some other top-ranked players) who contributes to this. How can we ever thank Fred enough?

 

I now live in the NYC area. Last summer the NABCs were played at the Hilton Hotel in Manhattan. I had the privilege to kib Fred and Brad for a while during one of their Spingold matches albeit sitting a table away (they won). After the match was over, I walked over to where Fred and his teammates were talking and, when the opportunity seemed right, I just had to introduce myself to him and personally thank him for BBO and all that he has done. Fred was so gracious to this total stranger to the point of offering to introduce me to his teammates. I wonder, how many world class players would have responded this way to a total stranger? I guess Fred is just one special person, and I personally want to thank him again for all he has done. I totally agree with winstonm. You are in a class by yourself!

[mike777]

I think the ACBL caters to the vast majority of its membership. Assuming 2,000 players are true experts that leaves 168,000 or more as intermediate or lower. Many may say that the active expert number is less than 2,000.

Assume at the club and sectionial tourney level the % of experts is even less than that.

 

Constant struggle between change and growth and keeping the vast majority of the paying customers happy while allowing the true expert room for growth and challenge.

 

Of course the ACBL changes slowly as all large voluntary organizations do. What do you really want the ACBL to do faster?

 

Online bridge is growing and many of us play 99% of our hands here rather than in person.

[fred]

The compliments and appreciation are all very nice, but I have to admit that I would prefer that people did not write such things about me. Let me explain:

 

I am basically "just a bridge/player programmer". As a result of being good at what I do, being in the right place at the right time, and having some wonderful people to help me (notably Sheri and Uday), I seem to have become famous. Woohoo!

 

Actually for me it is not something to woohoo about. Some people thrive on receiving attention from the masses (Zia for example). Culbertson, who hrothgar mentioned in his post, was probably like this too and I suspect that is one of the reasons he was so successful.

 

However, I am basically a quiet and shy person by nature. I would much prefer to sit at home and work on my computer or read a bridge book than having to deal with all the baggage that goes along with being a "public figure".

 

For me being famous is bad enough, but what makes things worse is that a lot of people seem to be hoping/expecting that I am going to "save the world" as far as bridge is concerned. I have realized that I may actually be able to make a difference and I am sure it would be satisfying to be able to look back in 30 years and see that my work mattered, but when people express things like this about me, especially in a public forum, it makes me feel a great burden of responsibility that I never asked for. Furthermore, I don't really want to think about the many people I will disappoint if I either "fail in my efforts" or decide that I just want to live a "normal life" one day.

 

Of course it is up to you to think whatever you want about me and it is flattering that some people want to share nice thoughts about me with the world. However, I would just as soon not have to read this sort of thing myself so please no more "Fred is so wonderful" threads!

 

One thing I should make clear is that I am not an altruist. I make forums posts becuase I enjoy discussing interesting bridge problems with intelligent people. I work on bridge software because I find such work to be enjoyable and satisfying. Yes, I hope my work will have a positive impact in the future of our game, but I am doing that for me, not for you! I would like there to be bridge players for me to play against when I am a senior citizen.

 

Now that we have that out of the way, I would like to say that I think hrothgar (who happens to be one of the smartest people I know) is wrong. In my opinion bridge could be a very popular game again. Most likely it will take another marketing genius like Culbertson or Goren to come along (sorry - that's not me!), but we have one thing going for us that will never change:

 

Bridge is a great game

 

If someone is able to sell that message to the masses and get many millions of people to try playing bridge, a certain % of them will fall in love with the game, just like we have. If bridge is presented properly the game sells itself.

 

Sure it's depressing that the vast majority of young people would rather play video games, listen to rap music, watch American Idol, or do other equally mindless activities rather than learn bridge. In my opinion, however, that is not how it has to be. Thinking, social interaction, and enjoying competition are all defining characteristics of what it means to be a human being. Those things are never going to change either and bridge offers all of these things (and much more) to anyone willing to give the game a try.

 

The time will always be right for bridge - we just need someone who can get that message through to the masses.

 

Feel free to think that I have a chance to do exactly that, but don't be too disappointed if it turns out I don't live up to your expectations!

 

Please don't take this post the wrong way. Your thanks and support really are appreciated, but really really really it is unnecessary (not to mention discomforting).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

As a young person I can say if my parents had not played bridge, I doubt I would ever have even heard about it. So if you are a parent or grandparent, teach them while theyre young and not distracted by girls (or guys) and video games lol. Bridge just needs more exposure, and I think TV is a great way to achieve that, as is bridge in the classroom. I was lucky to grow up hearing about Hamman and Wolff etc etc, but most arent that lucky. Bridge just needs exposure.

 

So Fred you're not here to save the world? that's too bad :) haha jk.

[ArcLight]

>From my perspective, the ACBL's biggest problem is that they refuse to admit defeat. The ACBL needs to recognize that bridge will not continue as a form of entertainment for the great unwashed masses... Efforts to promote bridge as a mass market form of entertainment are doomed to fail.

 

Because it takes a while to learn and play Bridge at a marginal level, many people no longer would be willing to make that time investment. It will no longer be a mass market item, but it certainly would appeal to more people if they actually knew about it. I suspect there are many people who would love the game but they have never been expose to it. I've been playing Bridge for a bit over a year. I learned it at age 40 because I got interested in Spades (a whist derivative) a couple of years prior, and the top Spades players were also strong Bridge players. (Check out www.masterspades.com)

 

Spades is popular, and I think some of those players could be brought over into the Bridge world. If only they knew what Bridge ws like.

 

(In college 20 years ago there was a group of solcial outcasts that played Bridge, and nobody wanted anything to do with them)

 

 

>I think that there is a very real danger that the regulators are going to kill the game of bridge. The ACBL is continually trying to dumb down the game chasing afer a vanishing demographic group. In doing so, they significantly reduce the game's appeal to what should be their new core market.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

What interests me in Bridge is the deductive reasoning and the mathematics of card play (combinations. optimization). Not the "language" i.e. complex bidding.

While all the new bidding systems and conventions are interesting and clever, I am not really that interested in spending a great deal of time on them. I'd rather think about "why did the opponent not lead a suit his pard overcalled" or "why is declarer playing that way, rather than another way". (I'd rather know 20 conventions well, than 125).

 

I don't think I'm "lazy", I'm just not interested in spending a huge amount of time memorizing arcane systems, when I could insted work on technique or comprehension of whats going on.

 

I see people posting that the game is turning off the new players because its dumbed down. I think the opposite. It would be hard to get new players if you told them "you will need to learn 100 conventions" to play well.

Also, I see a number of players who know a great many conventions, but are not good players. They make bad leads, they can't read the situation, etc. They can get some good scores because they memorized so many conventions that some pay off here and there.

 

I play Bridge as a form of recreation, I don't find it enjoyable to study languages in great detail. I'd rather play against strong players who dont use more than (for instance) 20 conventions, and concentrate on the deductive reasoning and card play, rather than not being able to deal with some destructive bidding system.

 

 

On a different note -

 

I read in some interview that Mike Lawrence wished the ACBL would commision him to make an "Intro to Bridge" program. If I were wealthy I would do it.

But the existing one on the ACBL website (I think Fred wrote it?) is also excellent, and if more people were aware of it, there would probably be more members.

I also read that Fred played with Bill Gates and Warren Buffit. If I had their money and liked bridge the way I do, I would commision Fred to make Bridge Master like programs available for free, to bring in new players. I'd have links on Yahoo and the Zone, perhaps even inside the Spades and other links.

 

Given Bridges complexity, I think what is needed is being exposed to it by good teachers. To be shown how it works and see some people playing it.

If there were Bridge clubs in high school, lead by a mentor, using just a few conventions, and concentrating on card play technique, I could see it coming back to some extent. But there would be stiff competition from other new card games, and video games.

[hotShot]

A lot of valid points have been mentioned already, but i like to add something:

 

Learning to play Bridge is a long term task. I bet if you ask Fred, he will tell you that even at his level one still learns and has to learn about the game.

 

Bridge is a "team" event. It needs two players to make a pair and at least 4 to form a team. To be succesfull you need to have a good partner, that fits to your bidding and playing style.

There are pairs who would rather get a divorce than a new bridge partner.

 

During the first steps, you can feel that you get better. But when you reach a medium beginner level (you know playing techniques, some conventions and your bidding system), you no longer see yourself advance. Training for a marathon, wich is also a long term task like learning bridge, you can mesure distance and speed, to see how you improve. But how do you mesure your advances in bridge?

 

Playing at home with friends, you win all the time?

Playing your local club (i know some with 2-4 tables) , you usually reach a top position?

[TimG]

There are pairs who would rather get a divorce than a new bridge partner.

There are pairs that still play together after getting a divorce.

[pclayton]

A few rants:

 

The bridge population appears to be bottoming out and rising back up.

 

Junior bridge is not going to save this game. Juniors get more publicity than whats actually happening out there. The league likes to give good press to junior bridge to offset the fact that bridge if viewed as an old person's game (which by and large, it still is).

 

Whats going to save this game are (at least) three trends that we are all witness to:

 

1) Longer life expectancy. When someone retires; they can look forward to 25-30 years of leisure time.

 

2) Baby boomer generation. Currently the front edge of the B-B's (age 42 to 60) are just hitting retirement age. What do they plan to do with their life? Many of this generation played bridge in college, but work and family became priorities. Now that the kids are grown and work is finished (or substantially reduced), they need something to do. Golf, tennis and traveling are fine, but they need an intellectual pursuit as well. The only real responsibility they will have is looking after their aging parents.

 

3) Increased wealth. B-B's are richer than their parents. Coupled with #1 and #2, wealth will lead to more time and interest in hobbies.

 

The league needs to position itself to take advantage of these trends. I'll leave it to the marketing wizards to determine how to tap into this. But a market that has not existed in the past 40 years is suddenly at the league's disposal.

 

Fred isn't the public figure that will ressurrect the game; but I'm not sure that there is one. Fred does provide the medium where many will rediscover this game as they hit the 'golden years'. The BB generation IS well versed in technology, and can take advantage of BBO to rediscover bridge.

 

It is a mistake if we make the game too technical for these folks. While the BB's are extremely intelligent, and many come from professional backgrounds, learning this game is difficult enough. Let them be their own captains on how much 'freedom' we give to non-standard systems. They will be the new stewards of the game.

 

Maybe the place is another thread, but frankly, I think it we are going to grow this game, we need to make it as user-friendly as possible. And if that requires systemic restrictions in events where Mr. and Mrs. B-B are playing, then so be it. OTOH, as the B-B's advance and want to play in the Spingold, they shouldn't have the protections afforded to them they have in the stratified pairs at the Long Beach sectional.

 

I don't ever expect the league to replicate the success of bridge in the 1930's to 1960's. Would I want it too? Why not? I kind of miss playing in a Saturday Open pairs at a regional where there was 150 tables. Its kind of cool to do well in a huge event like this, even though many of the players can't follow suit.

 

I'm just not satisfied with bridge being a 'niche' game, sorry.

[Yzerman]

Quick comments and some personal beliefs -

 

For me to sit and comment on "what should the ACBL do to resurrect bridge", or any other bridge organization, would be somewhat hypocritical knowing that I have not been as active in bridge as I 'could' have been.

 

Having said that, I am fortunate enough to have the ACBL's beginner/intermediate coordinator(s) nearby. I have had many opportunities to speak with them regarding what they offer to new players locally, as well as what they offer to the ACBL as a whole. They do a great job of promoting the game as well as teaching the fundamentals of bridge.

 

It is my belief, and the belief of others I have spoke with, that there is quite a disconnect from beginner/intermediate player to the layer of middle-upper tier players. The disconnect, I believe, is the evolution of a beginner/intermediate player into the ranks of dedicated/experience/quality bridge players, albeit I understand that people play bridge for many reasons (alot of which play for the pure social aspect). Below are a few other reasons why people play (other than socially);

 

a - To play in a perputually more challenging environment

b - To perpetually learn more about the game

c - Possibilities of developing sound partnerships is very limited (most 'good' players already have developed partnerships and limited time/resources to develop new ones)

 

As a matter of presenting an example, there is a local player who has an INCREDIBLE amount of natural ability for bridge. This person is a very active player (at all levels - club, tournament, special events, social gatherings) with the time and resources to dedicate to the game. I cant speak for this persons ultimate desire about the game, but their actions indicate that she has a great desire to compete on higher levels as well as learn more about the game. The avenues for this person to develop sound partnerships as well as an arena to learn/practice in a more competitive environment is EXTREMELY limited. The pool of 'good' players for her to develop partnerships is small, and clique'ish, and there is ABSOLUTELY no venue, class/game/event/social avenue, locally for this person to take advantage of improving herself.

 

Having said all of the above, I state my concern -

 

1 - Do others believe there is a disconnect in the bridge world for the aspiring and talented intermediate/advanced player?

 

2 - If others believe this, is there anyone willing to discuss solutions?

 

Regards,

MAL

[Winstonm]

It is my belief, and the belief of others I have spoke with, that there is quite a disconnect from beginner/intermediate player to the layer of middle-upper tier players

 

 

Herein lies the heart of the problem as I see it. I personally know a great many good to excellent players who simply stopped going to the local clubs and to the tournaments due to the decreased opportunity to play events offered only to the good/excellent group and the increased events catering to the begginer/intermediate players.

 

The good/excellent player does not want to mix it up continually with the beginner/intermediate because there is no challenge in it; not that they won't do so on occassion to somewhat "give back to the game", but most resent being required to do so continually.

 

For me, the thrill of bridge is and has always been the chance to compete against the very best. In the old days, I had to (got to in my opinion) sit down against Hamman, Wolff, Lair, Passell, Jacoby, Lawrence, Soloway, and a host of others and I had to hold my own or beat them to earn any masterpoints. In those days, the term "Life Master" had real meaning. Now, I have no real goal other than an enjoyment of the challenges of the game.

 

I do not advocate a new "level of accomplishment" for players; those that can play reach the point where they know it, the people that matter to them know it, and public accolades like "Silve Life Master" have little meaning to them.

 

Perhaps we will all simply sit at home at our keyboards in our pajamas and play on BBOnline. But I don't see this as helping the continuation of bridge. The real merit in live play used to be the post-game sessions at the local tavern or restaurant where both the good and intermediate players would meet in a social environment and rehash hand after hand. This is where learning took place.

That is sadly lacking in online play.

 

If there is a answer, I believe it is in making at least some tournnaments more of a social escape than a grind-it-out-for-masterpoints affair. By this I mean a one session a day tournament that starts at 11:00 and is over by 3:00, leaving time for comraderie between players instead of a mad dash to eat so we can get back for the evening games. And I would make these events open events, non-stratified, dog-eat-dog, and may the best pair or team win.

 

After all, when you beat Joe Shmoe it doesn't mean too much; but if you beat Meckstroth/Rodwell or Hamman/Soloway, you have a story to tell that will last your whole life.

 

Did I ever tell you about the time......

 

WinstonM

[TimG]

If there is a answer, I believe it is in making at least some tournnaments more of a social escape than a grind-it-out-for-masterpoints affair. By this I mean a one session a day tournament that starts at 11:00 and is over by 3:00, leaving time for comraderie between players instead of a mad dash to eat so we can get back for the evening games. And I would make these events open events, non-stratified, dog-eat-dog, and may the best pair or team win.

Sounds like you should try the Bermuda Regional (just finished). They even have an award ceremony banquet on the last day of the tournament -- a black tie optional affair.

[JanTucson]

Oh my, finally a thread that I can't resist. Having spent 15 years playing in a non-sanctioned duplicate game, I have very few points. My first question is: How do you rate player ability? Do you consider the play, or merely the ranking? I play three club games a week, two of them with flight A partners. These men chose to play with me because a) I am a very good player and :( I'm fun. Is there some reason the two can't be combined? BECAUSE, if NOT, the game is dead. Rude, nasty, flight A players will be the cause. I have encountered them and will no longer play at the other club. Fortunately the club at which I play has both advanced/expert players and a true ZERO TOLERANCE. Please think about it. If the game is no longer enjoyable, it will die.

[Winstonm]

My first question is: How do you rate player ability? Do you consider the play, or merely the ranking?

 

Good to hear from you. You are the type of player I am talking about. Points are meaningless unless they have been won against the best. Maybe it is more about sociology than bridge, but the two parts of the game I miss the most are the after-game roundtables, arguments, discussions, hand reviews, etc., and being able to buy in and sit down against a World Champion. Imagine in any other game being able to sit down and compete for a very modest amount of money against the best in the world. Do you think Tiger Woods would tee it up against you? How about Gary Kasparov? What's the chance of playing a game of chess with him?

 

Perhaps we now live in a different world where time and money prevents us from doing these types of things - but I doubt it. It is about priorities. People find the time to sit in front of the T.V. and watch the latest reality show and then talk about it for hours on end.

 

From what you say, I would rather have you as a partner than so many I've encountered with 1000+ points, and being a fun partner has a lot to do with it.

 

But my point is this: How would you (or do you) like it when you are relegated to Flight C Knockouts because of some inane point system when you would rather sit down and test out your skills against Lorenzo Lauria and Co.? Would you really want to go to a tournament at all?

[JanTucson]

Point well taken. Would rather not.

[fred]

Lots of interesting stuff in this thread, but I think some of you are missing an important point:

 

Bridge can become much more popular without duplicate bridge becoming much more popular.

 

Sure there are things that ACBL, club managers, tournament organizers, and duplicate players could do that would likely have a positive impact on the number of people playing competitive bridge. However, the ACBL now has something like 170,000 members and I don't think there have ever been more than 250,000 members at any given time. Even if the ACBL managed to double its membership to 340,000, that number would represent only a small % of the 10s of millions of people who used to play socially in North America.

 

The key is marketing the game to the masses. Only a small percentage of bridge players will ever be interested in studying the game seriously and playing competitively. An overwhelming majority of potential bridge players will never care about things like which conventions are allowed in clubs and tournaments, how easy it is to win masterpoints, or if they get a chance to play against the Bob Hammans of the world on a regular basis - they just want to play some cards with their friends, have a good time, and play well enough to occasionally bid and make a slam by taking a successful finesse. It doesn't even matter if the slam was a ridiculous contract or if 13 tricks were laydown without any finesses.

 

If the masses are to embrace bridge again, it is not unlikely that the ACBL and some leading players and personalities will play an important role in this, but polices regarding masterpoints, conventions, and who plays in which clubs and which tournaments are not relevant to the "big picture" in my opinion.

 

I suspect that even the "worst players" among the people who read BBO Forums have enough bridge knowledge and skill to be in the top 5% of the world's bridge players. Yes, we can do a better job making duplicate more attractive to this 5%, but it is the other 95% that really matters.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Trumpace]

I suspect that even the "worst players" among the people who read BBO Forums have enough bridge knowledge and skill to be in the top 5% of the world's bridge players.

Yay!

[Walddk]

The good/excellent player does not want to mix it up continually with the beginner/intermediate because there is no challenge in it; not that they won't do so on occassion to somewhat "give back to the game", but most resent being required to do so continually.

I am sure you have a valid point there Winston, and it's a shame really. Most experts seem to forget how they developed into what they are today when they were newish to the game: By playing with people who were better than themselves!

 

In my opinion experts have an obligation to play with lesser players more frequently. Some don't do it at all, some do it rarely, but most never do. How can beginners, intermediates and advanced improve if they don't have the chance to learn? You don't learn much by playing with the same intermediate players constantly.

 

I suspect that many want it this way. They are not really interested in learning too many new aspects of the game, but I am also pretty certain that we, on BBO as well as in real life, have many players who are dying to play with really good players.

 

Many times every day do I get private chat messages from intermediates who ask for a game. I may not be like the rest in my league, but I feel honoured, and time permitting I am happy to accept the requests.

 

Many more should follow that example! Keep asking, the worst scenario is "Sorry no", and that is not the end of the world for any of you.

 

Roland

[pbleighton]

I posted a suggestion on rgb, which got no support:

 

Eliminate stratiflighted events, and just have a beginner

game (199er, etc.) and a stratified open event. That way

the "aspiring players" (me!) can play against the top players

without having to play up in a segregated event where we

would (for now :blink: ) lose for sure.

 

Lots of B players don't want to play against the best, and

from the reaction on rgb, a lot of the best players have their

noses in the air and don't want to mingle with the <2000

masterpoints crowd.

 

I'd make an exception for some national events which

require prequalification.

 

What do you think?

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

I posted a suggestion on rgb, which got no support:

 

Eliminate stratiflighted events, and just have a beginner

game (199er, etc.) and a stratified open event.  That way

the "aspiring players" (me!) can play against the top players

without having to play up in a segregated event where we

would (for now :blink: ) lose for sure.

 

Lots of B players don't want to play against the best, and

from the reaction on rgb, a lot of the best players have their

noses in the air and don't want to mingle with the <2000

masterpoints crowd.

 

I'd make an exception for some national events which

require prequalification.

 

What do you think?

 

Peter

Couple points to consider:

 

From my perspective, many expert level players prefer to play in events where the skill levels are fairly uniform. Adding beginners into the field "randomizes" the results and reduces the ability of the experts to benefit from their superior skill.

 

Traditionally, when this argument is made, the experts make arguments "qualitative" arguments arround "bunny bashing". Bob Hamman made a famous comment likening teams matches with direct head to head competition to a pair of boxers climbing into the ring with one another and letting them slug it out. In contrast, he described pairs games as taking the same two boxers, blind-folding them, and placing them in a the ring with 20 drunks. The boxer who dropped the most drunks would be declared the winner.

 

Personally, I prefer to rely on more "pure" arguments related to the underlying math. A pairs tournament can be modelled as a statistical sampling problem. Each time players contest over a board, they provide a sample. These samples are then used to rannk the skills of the players. Mathematically, as you increase the variance of players skills, you increase the numbers of boards required to provide a 95% confidence interval.

 

Regardless of how you make the argument, the results are the same: Mixing the field strength imposes a significant cost on the expert players. A number of players in this thread are stating that expert players have an obligation to "give back to the game" and sacrifice their own enjoyment by competing in formats that reduce their ability to win. I'm no "Randroid" and have serious problems with Objectivism as a philosophy. Even so, I have big problems with this proposition and I imagine that other people do as well.

 

1. Bridge players almost always have the ability to play up and compete in the Flight A pairs events. If your goal really is to compete against the best then you can do so all you want. However, don't complain that you can't simulataneous "win" master points. Furthermore, as I noted earlier, mixed fields produce quite random results. The same "crapshoot" effects that plague the experts also taint the lower strats. So its not like your "victory" would really measure anything...

 

2. With this said and done, I like it when the experts make an effort to play with the Beginners. However, I think that this is best achieved through events specifically dedicated to education. New England has a number of Pro-Ams in which experts and novices partner each other. There are a wide number of training /mentoring programs available...

 

Sorry if this comes across as harsh...