[Apollo81]

Does anyone know when the last time this was tried? Why wasn't it successful? I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the idea. How could this be made successful in the future? If this was accomplished, it would probably bring a lot of younger people into the game.

It seems to me that the key elements to make this work are:

1. make everyone play the same, simple bidding system, probably Standard Amer. with just Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, Blackwood, and some conventional doubles

2. record in advance and cut out the boring hands (like I think they do in poker)

3. get good commentators

I'm sure this topic has come up before; most years during the holidays I'm asked about bridge by non-bridge players, and invariably the questions I get are "can you win money" and "is it on TV"

[Fluffy]

Chess doesn't go to TV either, I think the key would be to have VERY good comentators, and I mean ultra basic ones, those who would explain about how the contract is made by the use of a tool called 'finese'.

[JoAnneM]

Larry King, a sports promoter who had the Pro Bridge Tour for several years, tried to get ESPN and a few other venues interested when his money bridge first started.

It didn't work out and neither did the Pro Bridge Tour, which eventually evolved into Bridge University. But the setup was similar, everyone played the same card, the yellow card I think.

Larry is a bridge player and was once married to Billie Jean King.

[Gerben42]

I've seen chess on TV in Germany, it was quite interesting to watch.

I don't think that forcing everyone to play the same system is going to make any difference. The other variables (quality of commentators and format) are going to decide it.

I would like to add another thing to the equation: The format should work. People cannot connect to some event where points are converted into IMPs and those are converted to VP, but something like the Buffett Cup or a BAM championship will sell much more easily.

[Apollo81]

Gerben42, on Jan 7 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

I would like to add another thing to the equation: The format should work. People cannot connect to some event where points are converted into IMPs and those are converted to VP, but something like the Buffett Cup or a BAM championship will sell much more easily.

How about just money, like $1-10 a point or something

[Apollo81]

Gerben42, on Jan 7 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

I don't think that forcing everyone to play the same system is going to make any difference. The other variables (quality of commentators and format) are going to decide it.

I think a large number of people would find hands where one table is beating another because of bidding system boring. The goal of a TV show would be to hook people after only a few minutes. It's a challenge to just explain the basic rules in a few minutes, let alone try to explain artificial bids.

[HeavyDluxe]

Apollo81, on Jan 7 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

I think a large number of people would find hands where one table is beating another because of bidding system boring.  The goal of a TV show would be to hook people after only a few minutes.  It's a challenge to just explain the basic rules in a few minutes, let alone try to explain artificial bids.

THIS.

By the way... Chess on TV by kids @ http://www.worldchessnews.com/


For the record, I think bridge on TV could work. Simplify the scoring, simplify the bidding (so it's reasonable for the viewer), get good commentators, add a big enough prize purse, and I think it could fly.

[Gerben42]

Quote

For the record, I think bridge on TV could work. Simplify the scoring, simplify the bidding (so it's reasonable for the viewer), get good commentators, add a big enough prize purse, and I think it could fly.

i.e. play something called simplified bridge.

Quote

I think a large number of people would find hands where one table is beating another because of bidding system boring. The goal of a TV show would be to hook people after only a few minutes. It's a challenge to just explain the basic rules in a few minutes, let alone try to explain artificial bids.

Bidding decisions are almost always about what a hand is worth, and that is judgment not system. And you cannot outlaw artificial bids anyway, or do you want to outlaw the strong 2♣ opening, or Stayman?

We should be talking about bringing Bridge on TV, not some kind of SimpleBridge that doesn't exist yet. How do you sell a game that no one plays, but is just invented to get on TV?

[hrothgar]

Said it before, I'll say it again:

Fixating on television is pointless. If people genuinely believe that bridge makes compelling viewing, there are better ways to distribute content than television.

Create some videos, put them up on You Tube, Google Video, what have you. Count your downloads.

Any TV executive worth his salt is going to want people to document that there is real market demand before they are willing to talk seriously about bridge on TV. Internet distribution is probable the best way to validate the idea.

More significantly, I don't think that anyone out there believes that televising bridge is going to be any kind of great money maker. I do see lots of folks claiming that this is a great way to promote the game. If you want lots of folks to see your videos, the Internet is a much better option than some 3:30 AM time slot on ESPN 8...

If folks genuinely believe in this, they should be investigating how much money it would take to film/edit next year's Buffet Cup... Anything else is idle speculation.

(For what its worth, I think that watching bridge on TV sounds about as interesting as watching paint dry. You don't even have the excitement from the fumes)

[kfay]

I think Phil Gordon would make a great commentator.

He already commentates on the Celebrity Poker Showdown or whatever it's called, has a lot of poker recognition and blogs for ESPN so people would tune in and say 'hey... Phil Gordon plays bridge?' I wouldn't be surprised if he'd do it... lol. Josh would know better than I, I suppose.

Anyway this has been touched on before, I think. You explain Texas Hold'em to people in the first 5 minutes of the show. This really cannot cannot be done with bridge. It's a medium that would not suit it well, imo. Probably will never succeed.

[helene_t]

Apollo81, on Jan 7 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Jan 7 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

I don't think that forcing everyone to play the same system is going to make any difference. The other variables (quality of commentators and format) are going to decide it.

I think a large number of people would find hands where one table is beating another because of bidding system boring. The goal of a TV show would be to hook people after only a few minutes. It's a challenge to just explain the basic rules in a few minutes, let alone try to explain artificial bids.

You cannot explain a SAYC auction in that time frame either, especially if it contains weird things like Stayman or t/o doubles or artificial 2♣ opening. I think it will suffice to say that "the auction is shown in the inserted diagram and North has revealed a fairly strong hand with exactly five hearts". And then it doesn't matter whether they play T-Rex or Stoneage Acol as most won't pay attention to the details anyway.

I am thinking about ways to show a possible finesse or throw-in using animation. Maybe something cool could be made.

[Echognome]

kfay, on Jan 7 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

Anyway this has been touched on before, I think. You explain Texas Hold'em to people in the first 5 minutes of the show. This really cannot cannot be done with bridge. It's a medium that would not suit it well, imo. Probably will never succeed.

I disagree. I think you could make it much more interesting to a wider audience if you did a little translation (and people played a basic system).

"Each player is dealt out 13 cards and the play occurs in two phases. In the first phase, each player in turn starts an auction where their side tries to outbid the other side for the trump suit. The winning side must take the required amount of tricks to make a positive score or else the opposing side wins points."

"Most players use a point count system to initially evaluate their hand A=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1 and then make adjustments if they have a lot of cards in one or two suits."

"Here we see Jones as dealer and he doesn't have a very good hand."

"Yeah only 4 high card points Bob."

"So he passes as dealer. The next player Smith has 14 points and 5 hearts. He bids to take 7 tricks in hearts."

"Yeah. You have to start the bidding at taking more than half the tricks, so he's getting the ball rolling."

etc. etc.

[kenrexford]

IMO, if you want to make viewing bridge potentially interesting to other people, you have to include a focus on that part of the game that would be most interesting to people who do not play the game, and then "sneak in" the game.

In other words, imagine a "story" like this. High-level bridge is played by an unexpectedly strange group of people. Young hippies, aging nutcases, hotties from Sweden, and the like. If you built a reality show based upon the personalities and relationships of these people, which are often amazing, and then incorporate into this some high-stakes money bridge, then you might have something.

[HeavyDluxe]

Let's start by asking what the goal of putting bridge on TV would be... So? Well, I imagine the biggest one would be to generate interest in the game, money for businesses that profit from bridge, and put more fish in the pond for good players to fleece for cash.

If that's the case, why do we insist on grousing that simplifying the bidding system for that purpose is 'something other than bridge'?

If a 2♦ opener means "I have weak hand but think we can take the majority of tricks with ♦s as trump or we can at least break up our opponents bidding", I think that's profoundly easier to grasp for the audience. If, on the other hand, 2♦ is multi....

If the goal is to market bridge, then we should create platforms to market the game simply so people get hooked. THEN expand their horizons. JMNSHO.

[Fluffy]

I vote for gnome as comentator

[csdenmark]

I have my computers connected to my TV-sets.

This means I have bridge on TV.

I don't use the option - the offers are too boring.

[fred]

HeavyDluxe, on Jan 7 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

Let's start by asking what the goal of putting bridge on TV would be...  So?  Well, I imagine the biggest one would be to generate interest in the game, money for businesses that profit from bridge, and put more fish in the pond for good players to fleece for cash.

If that's the case, why do we insist on grousing that simplifying the bidding system for that purpose is 'something other than bridge'? 

If a 2♦ opener means "I have weak hand but think we can take the majority of tricks with ♦s as trump or we can at least break up our opponents bidding", I think that's profoundly easier to grasp for the audience.  If, on the other hand, 2♦ is multi....

If the goal is to market bridge, then we should create platforms to market the game simply so people get hooked.  THEN expand their horizons.  JMNSHO.

Agree, but I would go even further:

Leave out the bidding completely (except perhaps mentioning that it exists), at least for the first few "lessons".

I also agree strongly with some of the other posters who mention the importance of including colorful personalities (and pretty girls - sorry if that sounds sexist but sex sells), playing in exotic locations, and doing other such things to generate human interest. Phil Gordon would indeed be an excellent host, IMO, as would Audrey Grant (because both score very well in terms of charisma).

I agree with Hrothgar that there exist various media that are more effective than TV for presenting bridge, but I also believe that most people would be unlikely to discover bridge unless it was put on TV.

My personal belief is that it is possible to make bridge more popular (perhaps much more popular) through TV, but that for such a project to succeed you would need some seriously talented and experienced production and marketing people to be involved.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Quote

Leave out the bidding completely (except perhaps mentioning that it exists), at least for the first few "lessons".

That's probably best. You have to show like parts of some hands only. When they are reporting on soccer / tennis / whatever, they don't show the whole thing either.

[HeavyDluxe]

Yea Saith Fred:

Quote

Leave out the bidding completely (except perhaps mentioning that it exists), at least for the first few "lessons".

*nods*

In celebration of the 'new depression', we started have card night with another couple. They decided - much to my shock and joy - that they want to try bridge for a while.

So, we started with Minibridge this past time... It was a blast. It makes sense out of what the auction is trying to accomplish ("If we have more than our average share of 'power', we rate to take the 7th trick or even better!") and makes the game readily playable.

While I'll grant this isn't "Bridge", we ended the night with people who were interested in playing again - including my wife who (in an effort to be kind to me) has tried to learn before and always got turned off by the 'incomprehensible' auctions.

Keep 'open' tourneys open, but start a couple events that enforce mostly natural methods and I think you'll see interest in the game boom.

[mrdct]

There was quite a nice DVD series made from the Istanbul Olympiad which had Zia & Sabine Auken (both in after-five gear) hosting and David Burn commentating. I think it was comprised of about six 30 minute episodes that did actually air in Europe somewhere.

It was put together very professionally with really nice graphics but there was very very little actual bridge; which was probably intentional as it was more about the colour of the event and the drama of a women's final being decided on the last board. There were no bridge hands covered from start to finish with commentary usually coming in at an end position so it looks like each hand only takes a minute or so.

I think it was quite watchable by a non-bridge player with a passing interest in card games, but a serious kibitzer you would be watching on BBO.

My final thought is that with the high production values, it must have been very expensive to produce, so without a wide distribution deal or rich benefactor it's going to be very hard to make any money out of it.