[hrothgar]

Anyone read the editorial page of the Times this morning?

http://www.nytimes.c...n/27osberg.html

[ArcLight]

Excellent Article, I agree completely.

>Television served as a social replacement for bridge night.

I think TV has claimed many miollions, who no longer do other "social" activities. No cure for this.


>To compensate for increasing competition from technology, some sort of marketing by the various bridge organizations might have kept bridge visible, but until very recently, no marketing was done. As a result, bridge is rightly perceived as a game "my grandparents" play.

I got into Bridge form the card game Spades (also a derivative of the Whist family). Everyone referred to Bridge as a game for old people, so I stupidly never even looked into it. Stereo types of the types of players can have a big impact on interest.


>Bridge will never have the spectator appeal of games like poker. It's just too cerebral. Moreover, the learning curve is steep.

I agree.

However, Poker has one additional feature tahts hugely popular in the USA. Gambling for money. That alone can give an enormous boost to a game.
All it takes are a few stories about some college student making $100,000 a yer playing poker (like day traders in the late 90's) to generate huge interest.

I think a very simplified bidding system would be useful to allow new players to start playing quickly.


> But it's worth trying to bring back some of the glory of bridge by getting young people engaged in the game.

I agree. But everone is used to playing games and chatting online. We may play bridge on line. But that can make it hard to go over things with partners.

[cherdano]

Nice article.

What I don't like so much are these sort of claims (I am exaggerating) "Bridge is going down because the ACBL is not doing enough marketing" (or "because ACBL is not allowing transfer openings", or "because ACBL is not protecting newbies enough from evil director calls" or whatever). The ACBL cannot spread bridge, it is the bridge players who can. Marketing campaigns can't do as much in getting people to play as bridge courses at universities/schools (thanks Ed!). An ACBL prizes for young bridge players won't do as much as bridge players getting their friends to play (thanks Han!). A bridgeiscool website won't do as much as a deal of the week that not only teaches some nice bridge technique but also gets the author's love for the game across (thanks Fred!).

I think the best thing the ACBL can do is to help their members spreading bridge.

Arend

[pclayton]

Too bad she couldn't plug Gavin Wolpert winning the Blue Ribbon pairs at Denver with his fiancee (ages 23 and 20). I assume the article was written before they won.

[hrothgar]

ArcLight, on Nov 27 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

However, Poker has one additional feature tahts hugely popular in the USA. Gambling for money. That alone can give an enormous boost to a game. All it takes are a few stories about some college student making $100,000 a yer playing poker (like day traders in the late 90's) to generate huge interest.

Its interesting to note that the NYT has another article on the Op-Ed page written by a chess player. His central thesis is that there isn't enough money in chess to motivate the top talent to stick with the game...

[ArcLight]

>Its interesting to note that the NYT has another article on the Op-Ed page written by a chess player. His central thesis is that there isn't enough money in chess to motivate the top talent to stick with the game...

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Jornal last week that told about a computer game player who makes over $100,000 plus other perks.
As computer games become popular, there will be "money" to pay the top players, just as there is/was for Bridge.

I'm not so concerned with the incomes of the top players. I just want there to be some decent local players so I can play and socialize with them.

[Double !]

Television is a major contributor to the decrease in numbers of people playing bridge? Bridge is a game my grandparents played? That is like saying that Golf is an old man's game (or old woman's: equal billing).

Nonsense, hogwash, GARBAGE! Puleeze.

I was playing bridge fervently during 1969 to 1973, games were usually quite well attended (except for sectionals), and there was more television available than one could possibly watch.

Sorry, Sharon. But your thesis just doesn't cut it IMO. I think that there are many other reasons for the decrease. I doubt that TV is even a factor. I have some hypothesis, but I doubt that they would be popular with a lot of other people, so I shall keep them hidden (for now).

Sharon might have a stronger case for blaming the decrease in numbers on the loss of young lives in Viet Nam, equally nonsensical!

Unfortunate waste of space on a Sunday Times.

DHL

[ArcLight]

>I was playing bridge fervently during 1969 to 1973, games were usually quite well attended (except for sectionals), and there was more television available than one could possibly watch.

I think TV/Computer Gaming has gradually eroded social participation in things. I don't think it happened all at once. All it takes is a gradual diminishment, say a loss of 2% a year, for many years, and gradually critical mass is lost. Or more likely, younger people watch TV, rather than play Bridge. So the number of new people entering the hobby gradually declines.


>I doubt that TV is even a factor. I have some hypothesis, but I doubt that they would be popular with a lot of other people, so I shall keep them hidden (for now).

Come on, out with it!

People are not genetically less intelligent today (30-40 years later), unless its some environmental factor, like Lead or Mercury poisoning.

There are other forms of entertainment that are easier, that appeal to potential Bridge players, especially younger ones. TV, Computer Games, Internet Chatting.

[Al_U_Card]

One main reason.......general lack of "time" available for parents to devote to their children. My parents taught me bridge when I was in grade school. My brothers and I would play with my mom on rainy weekend days.

In the last 2 generations, both parents work. Overtime requirements leave parents exhausted and kids can just be "plugged" into the TV or video game.

Bridge must be promoted as an extra-curricular (or even math/ethics adjunct) activity at public and high school. It sharpens the mind and develops the spirit and only occasionally darkens the soul.....good grist for anyone's mill.

[han]

I don't particularly like the article.


However, I am very interested to hear what Don's hypothesis is. This could be something sensational, something that will change our way of thinking about bridge forever. It could also be something we all know but nobody dares to say ("because bridge players are all so ugly!"). Time to speak up Don.

[luke warm]

i don't know... i think of myself as 'average' (whatever that means) in my attitude towards most things, but as far as bridge goes i never did play much outside of the home (and i played 3 or 4 nights a week there)... even now i don't play at the local club (it only meets once a week anyway), and i only go to the occasional tourney in the new orleans or baton rouge area, and only one of those in the last 4 years (n.o. nationals where i played in 2 sessions only)

so in my view, being able to play online is a real blessing... i have the best of all worlds, i don't have to go anywhere and i can play at home... so unless the acbl or other orgs figure some way to make the internet *the* main draw, i think bridge decline will continue

of course i'd do it differently if i could afford it... after i win the powerball this wednesday i'll start traveling and playing more live

[Al_U_Card]

As much of a kick as I get out of a good result or a tough defense or an admirable play (by either side) it seems that the effect is way more intense f2f. (I think the "relaxed" environment in front of my computer is partly to blame.)

There is nothing like the 'feel' of a national competition, even just being in the room (I remember Reno with sections going to triple letters) is a thrill, to say nothing of seeing top flight players and having a chance to go against them even if it is to get your clock cleaned (B. Goldman, Lynn Deas, etc.)

On-line is great practice and convenient as hell, but getting people out to the gladiatorial arena is a better draw and insurance of survival.

[Double !]

Hannie, on Nov 28 2005, 05:30 PM, said:

I don't particularly like the article.


However, I am very interested to hear what Don's hypothesis is. This could be something sensational, something that will change our way of thinking about bridge forever. It could also be something we all know but nobody dares to say ("because bridge players are all so ugly!"). Time to speak up Don. 

Sorry Han, nothing sensational in my hypotheses.

I strongly agree with Al_U_Card regarding the advent of computer/video games
(including Bridge!!!)

Perhaps I am just personalizing the situation, but:
1) I stopped playing Bridge for the most part about 13 years ago and I didn't miss it at all. What did I need to prove? There were more important things in life. Then I discovered on-line Bridge at another sight and eventually made my way to BBO (much to chagrin of wife). Dang! Hooked again!

2) One of the reasons that I stopped playing was the times when games began and ended (too late and too late for this working person). I would be exhausted the following day. Bridge also impacted on time with my family.

3) Increased work-related demands and stress has decreased energy and time for live Bridge for me and for a number of my friends.

4) Bridge, especially tournaments but even local games, has become increasingly costly. This includes the price of food/beverage (couldn't bring one's own soda into a hotel?). This might not an issue for someone who might be wealthy, but it was a real issue for someone like me with a family including kids to raise.

5) I stopped playing Bridge because I found myself becoming increasingly annoyed and turned off by the stodginess of many directors, and by the many unpleasant, self-focused, rude, and (in my opinion) poorly socialized individuals that I continually met. And I can't stand those people who yell and scream at their partners and use "unwanted language". What is wrong with such people? (Please don't even try to tell me that this is how someone becomes a better player: by being yelled at). Why are so many people so angry? If the pressure of competition causes people to act uncivilized, then maybe they need to re-assess their priorities and behaviors!!!!

Have you ever noticed how many conversations among bridge players begin with something like "let me tell you about what we (meaning "I") did on board whatever? And the person then proceeds to speak about some great play or bid that he/ she made. Have you ever notice how often it has been partner's fault for a bad result or misunderstanding? This is one reason I am uncomfortable with threads that ask people to apportion blame for a result. Need I explain further? IMO, any errors or bad results at the table are either attributable to both players/ this is a partnership. In addition, the opps sometimes do good things against you!

The fact that I apparently cost myself and three team-mates free passage to a nationals on the last board of the Flt B. GNT regional Q's several years ago didn't sit well with me, either. (lol, I still say that the article in the newspapers had some the important spot cards wrong!) Who need that kind of grief?

6) I started to have increasing difficulty remembering every rule and procedure (like what is and isn't an alert, an announcement, etc.) and started thinking that some people were more pedantic, captious, and interested in getting a good result due to some technicality rather than their good bidding or play on a hand. Does one need to be an attorney now in order to safely play.

7) Bridge tournaments seem to be getting more segregated and elitist. There are the top or championship players and flights, and then there are the rest of us. They play in one part of the tournament locale and we play in another. I believe this is like "separate but equal?"
I remember kibbing a Spingold not too long ago. It was located in the main ballroom of the major hotel, and was physically apart from the other games. It was a good thing that one of the players at the table I was kibbing was an old friend and occasional P (when I was quite young). It just felt uncomfortable being there. Not a single hi or comment from anyone else except if I spoke first. I wasn't one of the elite, part of the in-crowd. Maybe it was me but I wondered if I belonged in that room with all of these "name players".
Admittedly, this was not an issue for me when I was playing regularly decades ago and knew/ was friendly with a lot of players and known people. I don't know. The whole atmosphere was just rather stuffy to me and hectic. Maybe things will change for me when I retire some day, but for now what used to be something I loved and cherished is just too much of a hassle.

No bridge players aren't "ugly", but some of them need to learn how to grow up and get off of their ego trips. Some of the most wonderful people that I know are superb bridge players. But so many other people...........oh, well. I'm no prize, either!

There I've said it. You may all ostricize me now.

lol, I am writing this instead of writing a report that's due tomorrow morning!

[Chamaco]

DShould we blame the drop of bridge due to TV, other fancier hobbies and/or poor marketing of our Federations ?

Perhaps, but I have a theory based on my own previous experience from the chess field.
I am sorry if I continue to bring the analogy with chess, I do not mean to be repetitive , but of course I have much less experince from the bridge area, so I can just think aloud expressing what I think are the analogies.

In chess to, the number of players attending the clubs were slowly dropping.

So people started asking themselves: whose fault is this ?

The discussion in the Forums was the same:

a. TV, media, fancier hobbies
b. wrong policy by the Federation.

Now, my point is another:
suppose that you convince people to start learning bridge, what shall you do to keep them at the club and not run away ?

I had the occasion to attend many ches club, and the typical newcomer arrives, totally lost at a chess cklub, and has a hard time finding tables where to play.
It takes a lot of time, not only to study the technique, but also to become integrated in the context of the club.

Usually, I would say that only 1/2 new players out of 10 will remeain at the club, because they are not motivated to stay : think of it, why should a normal person be motivated to put a lot of effort to study and have anyways a hard time to find good partners (or, in case of chess opponents) ?


So would say, that, even under the curent conditions, it would be possible to increase the rate of new players in most club by a factor of about 3-5, compared to the current rate.


But, this involves stopping blaming external factors, and start to work on our availability to new players at the clubs.
I must say that there are indeed strong players who devote some of their time to this, and, where this does happen, it seems to me that the chess and bridge clubs are in much better shape, in termes of keeping the club activity alive.

===================

This was also my experience in bridge clubs, although more limited i time.
That's where BBO was great: on BBO, the number of players is so big that a newcomer has a higher chance to play with nice players that can make him improve.


So my point is that, EVEN UNDER THE CURRENT CNDITIONS;

[42]

I have some additional thoughts to that problem...
- People are more and more used to be served something: music on CD, copies of whatever instead of writing down by oneself, fast food instead of cooking, listening to books on CD instead of reading, going by car instead of walking / going by bycycle, etc etc. The general interest in efforts decreases imo, it is not necessary any more, most of us are able to fulfill needs immediately. Many people think it is fun and the goal of a day to sit on the sofa and "relax"
- There is a trend that more and more people live alone, avoiding the admittedly hard work on relationships in any form. Bridge as partnership game requires that work and there are enough uncomfortable (of course also many comfortable!!) situations at the table or afterwards
- It became harder to focus on 1 thing at the time because the offers are so varied. Bridge takes a lot of time and brain resources, either for studying or for playing.
- For me personally it is hard to go to work, take care of family and friends and then go to the club, playing a bridge tourney in the evening, I am just too tired. I think many others have that problem as well.

[Al_U_Card]

So, If our parents no longer have the time, can we get players to take the time? Mentoring programs and newcomer games are really what is needed. Since we do have them in place, perhaps a bit of tweaking?

New players are given "contacts" that they can refer to for advice, help or even the occasional game to keep them interested and encouraged. Clearly, anyone giving of their time needs to be considered so perhaps games with "newbies" would be free for the mentor? (Or he gets a free pass to a local game or tournament of his choice....etc.)

[42]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 30 2005, 03:44 PM, said:

So, If our parents no longer have the time, can we get players to take the time?  Mentoring programs and newcomer games are really what is needed.  Since we do have them in place, perhaps a bit of tweaking? 

New players are given "contacts" that they can refer to for advice, help or even the occasional game to keep them interested and encouraged.  Clearly, anyone giving of their time needs to be considered so perhaps games with "newbies" would be free for the mentor? (Or he gets a free pass to a local game or tournament of his choice....etc.)

At least here people take money for that
Why I don't do it myself without money? Because I simply have too less time for my many interests. I offered lessons in a school for young people from 15 +. They found they have already too much brainwork to do for school, others simply prefered PC games with sounds and colours (and blood). Bridge must be "chic" for a big crowd but I have no idea how to transmit that IT IS...

[Chamaco]

My main point was not
"How to convince more people to attend to bridge clubs"

but rather

"I'd be happy if we were able to keep most of the newbies who already happen to come at the bridge club and runaway because they find no nice partners".

This come first in my opinion, much before the atempts to convince more people to start attending a bridge club.

[mycroft]

What worked at the University of Waterloo (besides a very dynamic - and skilled - leader) was to go after the CCG players; Magic in particular. To the point of learning to play those CCG oneself, maybe not to buy the cards, but at least to be able to be more than a chair with someone else's deck.

CCG players already are attuned to working on a game, and the complexity of bridge doesn't faze people who are dealing with 5000 unique cards and trying to maximize the synergy of the cards' effects - frequently in ways the creators didn't imagine. Not that they become bridge experts immediately, but they don't give up when faced with the eternity of the task.

They also know about "friendly games" vs. "tournament play", different kinds of games (and that different strategies are required), and certainly have spending cash (Magic is *not* a cheap hobby!)

It's a niche market, but significantly larger than the number of under-40 bridge players. They won't make bridge "the Game" - but they will play.

One warning: These players are smart, and pick things up fast. They are frequently either in school or just out, and therefore are used to learning quickly. If you try to pace The Club Series to 8 weeks, you will lose them. If you teach with a "one true bidding style" philosophy, you will lose them - remember, they live in a "what if I combine this {card, bid} with this one? What happens then?" world already.

Michael.