BBO Discussion Forums: "Bridge is for old people" - BBO Discussion Forums

It's nothing to do with bridge - she just doesn't like you. If she did, it would be:
Gwnn: 'bridge is fun'
Girl: 'bridge is for clever people'
Gwnn: 'but I play bridge!'
Girl: 'you must be clever'

paulg, on 2012-October-09, 16:00, said:

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

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

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

rhm, on 2012-October-10, 02:27, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dwar0123, on 2012-October-09, 12:08, said:

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

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

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-10, 05:47, said:

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!

trevahound, on 2012-October-09, 11:35, said:

lalldonn, on 2012-October-09, 12:29, said:

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?

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 08:42, said:

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.

hrothgar, on 2012-October-10, 09:12, said:

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.

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 09:20, said:

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.

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 09:20, said:

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.

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 09:20, said:

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.

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.

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 08:42, said:

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?

lalldonn, on 2012-October-10, 11:23, said:

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?

barmar, on 2012-October-10, 11:10, said:

Might want to look at http://en.wikipedia....iki/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.

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.

Vampyr, on 2012-October-10, 11:28, said:

Yes a huge one to many people.

lalldonn, on 2012-October-10, 11:55, said:

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

btw how did I end up in your signature?

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