[awm]

It's interesting reading Paul Marston complain about system regulations.

Realistically, Australia has some of the most lenient regulations of any major bridge organization. Yet Marston complaints that Australian youth bridge is not doing well.

If Marston's main point (system regulation is deterring young players from getting involved in bridge) held water, then you'd expect countries with very lenient regulations (i.e. Australia) to be doing better at attracting youth players (at least, better proportionate to the population or proportionate to the size of the bridge organization as a whole) than other countries with more strict regulations (i.e. the USA). While I don't have the statistics in front of me, it doesn't seem like this is really the case.

Anecdotally, there are a few young players who have lost interest in bridge due to system regulations. But before this ever happened, those young players had to be interested in bridge in the first place. I think the latter is the big stumbling block, and the aging tournament population is to some degree both cause and effect here.

[fred]

awm, on Mar 8 2010, 12:51 AM, said:

It's interesting reading Paul Marston complain about system regulations.

Realistically, Australia has some of the most lenient regulations of any major bridge organization. Yet Marston complaints that Australian youth bridge is not doing well.

If Marston's main point (system regulation is deterring young players from getting involved in bridge) held water, then you'd expect countries with very lenient regulations (i.e. Australia) to be doing better at attracting youth players (at least, better proportionate to the population or proportionate to the size of the bridge organization as a whole) than other countries with more strict regulations (i.e. the USA). While I don't have the statistics in front of me, it doesn't seem like this is really the case.

Anecdotally, there are a few young players who have lost interest in bridge due to system regulations. But before this ever happened, those young players had to be interested in bridge in the first place. I think the latter is the big stumbling block, and the aging tournament population is to some degree both cause and effect here.

Agree. IMO Marston's letter is transparently self-serving. To me he is obviously trying to get what he wants by creating a false linkage between this and a problem that is near and dear to all of our hearts (the uncertain future of bridge).

You hit the nail on the head: the key to solving this problem is to get more young people to try bridge in the first place.

I already wrote a letter to the editor of the IBPA Bulletin to that effect. It will be interesting to see if they print it in the next issue.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

Much as I am not a big fan of bidding regulations, I can't help but think that article took a relatively extreme position. As far as I can see, young people are not coming into the game in any significant numbers - so if they never make contact in the first place then the exact rules and regulations, be they good or bad, can't be that much of a factor.

When I was in my teens, we played cards at home - not Bridge, but most other things. Television still had only 3 channels and it stopped broadcasting late at night. Personal computers weren't invented. And a huge factor is that I went to a school where there was a teacher keen to be in charge of the bridge club. Of the 4 of us that represented our school that year, I know that at least one other is still playing (and writes for a regional newspaper). I know also that someone else from an earlier year went on to become the EBU's youth development officer for a while. So that one teacher had a huge effect on the game.

Marston mentions the fact that Chess still seems to have some healthy numbers of younger paticipants - but where I am schools still have chess clubs - I can't see any of them having bridge clubs. Maybe they do in some places - but not at the schools my kids have only relatively recently stopped attending.

If people want to argue that bidding regulations stifle development of bidding theory and may put off some from staying in the game - yeah - maybe. I'd really like to hear the opinion in this regard of some of the younger people who write on these forums.

Nick

[hrothgar]

fred, on Mar 8 2010, 04:06 AM, said:

awm, on Mar 8 2010, 12:51 AM, said:

It's interesting reading Paul Marston complain about system regulations.

Realistically, Australia has some of the most lenient regulations of any major bridge organization. Yet Marston complaints that Australian youth bridge is not doing well.

If Marston's main point (system regulation is deterring young players from getting involved in bridge) held water, then you'd expect countries with very lenient regulations (i.e. Australia) to be doing better at attracting youth players (at least, better proportionate to the population or proportionate to the size of the bridge organization as a whole) than other countries with more strict regulations (i.e. the USA). While I don't have the statistics in front of me, it doesn't seem like this is really the case.

Anecdotally, there are a few young players who have lost interest in bridge due to system regulations. But before this ever happened, those young players had to be interested in bridge in the first place. I think the latter is the big stumbling block, and the aging tournament population is to some degree both cause and effect here.

Agree. IMO Marston's letter is transparently self-serving. To me he is obviously trying to get what he wants by creating a false linkage between this and a problem that is near and dear to all of our hearts (the uncertain future of bridge).

You hit the nail on the head: the key to solving this problem is to get more young people to try bridge in the first place.

I already wrote a letter to the editor of the IBPA Bulletin to that effect. It will be interesting to see if they print it in the next issue.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

What's so amusing about this is that your argument and Paul's argument are (essentially) identical...

Paul is arguing that the Convention Regulations are overly complicated and the complexity / lack of logic is driving folks away...

You seem to be claiming that the Conventions themselves are overly complicated, and the complexity / incomprehensibility is driving folks away...

[blackshoe]

I wonder if there's a connection with "teachers keen to to be in charge of the bridge club". I know some teachers around here, some even who know how to play bridge. But they don't play very often, they don't play duplicate at all, and they aren't interested in being in charge of the bridge club. I've also discovered that it's pretty much true that if you can't get a teacher to back you, you aren't going to even get a foot in the door, if you're some random citizen who just wants to introduce school kids to bridge.

I think there's a place for "anything goes" games, but I don't think all games should be "bidding regulation free".

[fred]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

You seem to be claiming that the Conventions themselves are overly complicated, and the complexity / incomprehensibility is driving folks away...

No, I did not claim that. I have reread the post you quoted three times now and I still have no idea how you possibly could have got this impression from what I wrote.

If you care, what I am actually claiming is that systems restrictions or lack thereof are largely if not completely irrelevant in terms of attracting young people to bridge. Furthermore, I claiming that it is (much) more likely that Marston has an agenda than that he actually thinks what he wrote is true.

While it is not inconvceivable to me that systems restrictions are mildly relevant in terms of how many young players who become interested in bridge stick with the game for life, this cuts both ways.

But the bottom line is that getting young people to stick with the game for life is not the problem - the problem is getting them in the front door to begin with.

That is the most important point that I am claiming. Marston glosses over this point, most likely because it does not fit with his agenda.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

Mastson seems to say bridge is in decline in 2010. Some great decline compared to other years.


I strongly disagree.

I think bridge is an upswing compared to the last 40 years or so.....in general.


My guess....internet bridge.


As for his comment we have too much red tape....I guess I can only say compared to what the last 40 years? My guess is we have tiny bit...tiny bit less but ok.

If his main point is we need less bidding regulation.......well we are debating that yes, the last 40 years....bring it on....

[awm]

hrothgar, on Mar 7 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

Paul is arguing that the Convention Regulations are overly complicated and the complexity / lack of logic is driving folks away...

You seem to be claiming that the Conventions themselves are overly complicated, and the complexity / incomprehensibility is driving folks away...

It's true that some people have tried to make a claim that complicated systems/conventions are driving people away from bridge. If such were the case, we'd expect places with strict systems regulations (i.e. the USA) to be more successful at growing the game than places with somewhat laxer regulations (i.e. the Netherlands). This does not seem to be what's happening.

I very much doubt that there is any causal connection between systems regulations and getting young players involved with bridge, despite a few anecdotal cases in either direction. Obviously if someone has data to refute my opinion I'm happy to look at it... but it just seems that most people are hooked on the game before the systems regulations (or lack thereof) become a serious issue for them.

In fairness to Fred, he was not making the aforementioned causal connection in his post (although I have certainly heard other individuals do so), and he appears to agree with me that the systems regulations are unlikely to have any significant effect (in either direction) on player recruitment/retention.

[jdonn]

Well I think he made some good points, he just used them to support a conclusion without showing there is any connection at all. His points would have been better used to argue against system regulation for a variety of other reasons than that it will scare younger players away from playing.

[blackshoe]

Maybe we should ask some of our younger players why they got into the game, and why they keep at it.

[CamHenry]

blackshoe, on Mar 8 2010, 01:43 AM, said:

Maybe we should ask some of our younger players why they got into the game, and why they keep at it.

I'm 27. Do I count?

I started playing bridge because my girlfriend at the time wanted me to; she and her family had been on a cruise and had enjoyed the basic bridge lessons. Father wasn't keen, but mother, sister and she were, and I was drafted in as a fourth. We put together some crib sheets from Goren's Complete (1979 edition), and learnt with 4-card majors and a strong NT.

I keep playing bridge because I find it diverting (if played casually) and fascinating (when I have time to think about it). I also enjoy experimenting with systems, and have two systems on the go at the moment - one is highly artificial, pushing (nearly) every boundary of what is permitted by the EBU, and the other has all-natural bidding including intermediate-to-strong, non-forcing 2-level openers.

[helene_t]

awm, on Mar 8 2010, 06:34 AM, said:

it just seems that most people are hooked on the game before the systems regulations (or lack thereof) become a serious issue for them.

Agree with this.

Here in England there is substantial difference between the set of agreements you can play at level 3 and level 4, so you might think that people would want to know the level of an event before signing up for it.

Not so. The levels of events are usually not advertised. Once I inquired about the level of regulation for external teams it turned out that nobody knew (I asked all the TDs and team captains at our own club, plus a couple of contact persons for the league). Once I asked a TD during a county-level pairs event the same question. He didn't know.

The fact is: nobody cares about regulations.

I would like to know what, if anything, could be done to attract more young people to the game. But as much as I agree with Marston that it would be better to get rid of the regulations, I very much doubt that it would have a substantial impact on the number of young people playing bridge.

[the hog]

whereagles, on Mar 7 2010, 04:06 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 5 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

Before you get too excited about the method, the ACBL has ruling that this opening is inherently destructive and banned it at all levels of competition.

oh? What's so difficult about defending it? Playing 2♥ as Erken I would agree, but not in 2♦.

2D isn't forcing Whereagles, so you can't wait until they clarify the lengths.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Mar 8 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

2D isn't forcing Whereagles, so you can't wait until they clarify the lengths.

Agreed, but you can afford to pass it much more often than you'd pass a 2♥ Erken. This isn't a minor issue, as it's easy to construct hands where 2nd player would pass 2♦ but be much more pressed to act over 2♥.

[rbforster]

whereagles, on Mar 8 2010, 09:13 AM, said:

This isn't a minor issue, as it's easy to construct hands where 2nd player would pass 2♦ but be much more pressed to act over 2♥.

Exactly. As a common example, weak NT hands (~12-14 bal) with some diamond length can pass safely over 2♦, knowing that either responder will pick a major (allowing them to double or bid later), or if responder passes with a "weak two in diamonds" his partner will be short in diamonds and will take some action with values.

Of course responder can pass with a broke hand whenever he wants, but this will lead to silly contracts much more often when passing 2♦ than 2♥, and you won't want do this when Vul.

[the hog]

NV vs Vul I frequently passed an Ekrens 2D opening with a poor hand, even in some cases with 4 card support for a major. -250 vs -620 is hardly a silly result.