[Al_U_Card]

Ely Culbertson promoted bridge shamelessly and increased its popularity. Poker works because its visceral effect is shamelessly promoted online and on TV. Either we get big cash prizes and perhaps greater international rivalry or learn to live with the status quo.

As far as practical introductions go, perhaps we should advocate bridge to nerdy brainiac juniors as a way of getting out and scoring with other nerdy brainiac juniors at subsidized events away from home (hopefully keeping the male/female numbers fairly even, if you know what I mean....).

[Elianna]

Gerben42, on Oct 10 2006, 02:07 AM, said:

Quote

Also, there is a junior that is on the ACBL board of governors. Compare 1 out 500 to 24 out of 65,000. Not bad.

Who is this? Susan?

No, Jenny!

[Rain]

is your longest thread dead? =P

[Gerben42]

Well you just cannot start a thread by saying it's going to be a long one

[y66]

awm, on 2006-October-09, 14:53, said:

Let me try and give some reasons why encouraging young people to play bridge is important for the future of the game:

(1) Most young people do play games. In fact they even play card games. The problem is that these days, most of them are playing poker. Others are playing the various collectable card games (magic or whatever) or playing video games (halo, world of warcraft, etc). The goal is not to get these young people to play bridge instead of earning a living, dating, going to classes, etc. It's to get them playing bridge instead of the various other games listed above.

(2) A majority of the people who "take up bridge" later in life were actually exposed to the game when they were young. Most played a little social/rubber bridge, or at least hearts or spades in college. In most cases they weren't "serious" about these games, but the idea of "trick taking games" and playing cards with friends is present in their minds. Then when they are older and suddenly discover a lot of leisure time and/or that they don't have the energy for athletic activities they persued in their youth, they become more serious about bridge. Therefore it's important to give the current generation of young people some level of exposure to the game.

(3) The top-level "star" players almost all started playing fairly young. Young beginner players usually improve at a much faster rate than older beginner players. If we want to train up the next generation of national team players, we have to start young.

(4) There was a time when bridge was a spectator sport. This was possible because almost everyone understood the basics of the game. Even chess receives more news coverage now than bridge, because almost everyone knows how to play chess (yes, like bridge, there is a big difference between knowing how to play chess and being a serious chess player). If bridge is ever to be widely publicized again, we need the basics of the game to be widely understood, which means learning it should be a normal activity at least among the brighter youngsters (much like learning chess is today).

re: youngsters learning chess today, here's an interesting observation about the role of technology by Dylan Loeb McClain:

Quote

At the Reykjavik Open in Iceland, which ended Wednesday, Wei Yi, a 13-year-old from China, completed the requirements for the grandmaster title. In doing so, he became the fourth-youngest grandmaster ever.

It is a remarkable accomplishment, but not as remarkable as it once was. After Bobby Fischer became a grandmaster at 15 in 1958, breaking the old record by three years, it was 1991 before Judit Polgar bettered his mark.

Since then, 33 other players, including Yi, have earned the title at a younger age than Fischer. The current record-holder is Sergey Karjakin of Russia, who did it in 2002 at 12 years, 7 months.

The onslaught of young grandmasters is the result of the development of strong chess computers that can be used for training as well as the creation of databases and the Internet, which give players easy access to tough competition. Since today’s young players have more tools than players of earlier eras and therefore mature more quickly, does that make them prodigies? It is difficult to say.

[Cyberyeti]

sceptic, on 2006-October-09, 14:11, said:

I never played bridge until I was 40+ and the reason for this was I had a sex life and wanted to enjoy myself, I find it sad that a few youngsters under 25 want to play cards when they could be earning money or getting laid.

your thoughts on this subject would be welcomed and the500th poster will get a crate of beer from me, where ever you live in the world

I started learning bridge from my grandfather at the age of 8, I may have been fairly precocious but the other options weren't that sensible

To add, two of the best juniors I ever came across more or less gave up the serious game soon after leaving university to make their fortunes (with the junior worlds and the Gold Cup on their CVs). I wonder if we'll see them again when they retire.