[shevek]

Paul Marston had his usual swing at regulators in the current Australian Bridge magazine, also in the current IBPA mag. Here are some excerpts:

In his editorial, he suggested that regulations are keeping younger people away from the game. He starts by pointing out the low number of youth players world-wide, particularly in USA.

He quotes Bob Jones “When I started to play duplicate in 1971, I was the youngest guy in the club but not by much ... Today, almost 40 years later, I am still the youngest guy.”

Marston compares bridge numbers with chess, with a younger player base and growing numbers. “A recent scholastic tournament in Nashville drew more than 5,000 young people.” Paul’s hypothesis for the divergence is “the red tape that now binds the game.”

He then gives examples from US Nationals, where you can respond 1D to show hearts but not have transfer 1-level openings, etc. “The authorities only license the familiar, so we now have a set of ad hoc regulations that simply entrench old ways.”

Paul is against bidding regulations “Bidding is a collection of ideas – to regulate bidding is to legislate against thinking and to curb imagination. What good will come of forcing the new generation to do things the old way?”

“Some say that those who use unusual methods gain an unfair advantage from their opponents being unprepared. What is unfair about taking advantage of your opponent’s lack of preparation and knowledge?”

Finally, “Let the game evolve. Get rid of all bidding regulations – the lot. ... This will not appeal to the self interest groups who had their way with the WBF but that doesn’t matter. They have no right to hijack the game.”

[Jlall]

and here we go!

[rbforster]

I'm pretty sure this got discussed in some detail here before, but I can't find the thread. The short version was that he pointed out various facts, but his conclusions weren't always supported by them and seemed to be more his opinions. [which I tend to agree with, but not always for those reasons]

[Cascade]

Marston makes many fine points.

[gwnn]

perfect nonsense.

anyway:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=441644

[Mbodell]

Anecdotally, I've observed younger people tend to like to experiment with more diverse systems and I know some who are more interested in playing more when they can play "unusual" systems. And I know the people who complain most about unusual systems are experienced older players.

But I agree that the biggest problem isn't "too many crazy systems" or "too crazy system regulations" but not enough young people playing the game to begin with.

I have dozens of coworkers who play poker or big two but only know one other coworker who plays bridge.

[dake50]

Exactly. Whatever happen to unrestricted games? Beginners could play convention-limited games, and open games were free for all.

The only downside to bridge is unusual would have to be well documented to answer any BIT. Similar as hesitate odd/even signals "showed" wrong parity signal. Document that even without that BIT my switch(continue) was what our partnership does. Passed hand splinter cannot be GF, but some will force game anyway - what do they look like? So acted as documented, not as BIT.

The forcing pass (Slawinski) wasn't difficult to defend the Pass nor fert. But their point range for non fert/pass hit near the break even value - big advantage.

Let alone the shapes partition should have been tested.

[Tola18]

dake50, on Apr 17 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

and open games were free for all.

Or better still, let them have some special tourneys where anything goes. So they can be happy playing there and experimenting as much as they wish.

[nige1]

Most of the reasons for Bridge's decline, players can do little about Although we could all try the effect of being more friendly and sporting

Bridge rules (regulations and laws) could be clearer, simpler, less subjective, and less fragmented. Bridge Law discussion groups show that Law-makers and Directors can't understand the rules of Bridge. They disagree about the meaning of laws. They disagree about rulings in simple basic cases with undisputed facts. Such confusion and inconsistency fosters an impression of unfairness.

Rule simplification would make the game more attractive to new players and it could be done now. I think Paul Marston is right that System licensing restrictions are a case in point. Liike other commentators, I would prefer a 2-tier set-up: "Anything goes" or "Simple standard system".

Unfortunately, regulators rarely consult ordinary bridge-players. Anyway we tend to be
apathetic and set in our ways.

Nevertheless, IMO, on-line bridge has given the game a new lease of life And players new hope This is partly because of simple rules that facilitate learning, understanding, compliance, and enforcement

[fred]

You can read the most recent version of the IBPA Bulletin here:

Link to April 2010 IBPA Bulletin

It contains several letters to the editor in response to Marston's letter that appeared in the previous issue. One of these letters is by me, but the editor (reasonably I suppose) watered down the original (which gave the IMO disingenuous Marston the scathing that IMO he very much deserves).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[VMars]

Whenever I go to a club or tournament where people don't know me, I get asked why I don't teach more of my friends to play bridge. (In reality, most of my friends do, some because I taught them.) They basically want more young people to play bridge, and blame video games/poker etc. I think a big problem is that these people who are after me did not teach their children to play, and the children did not teach their grandchildren.

I don't think that system regulation has anything to do with why the majority of people my age do not play bridge. I concede that it may be why some minority quit, but you have to start before you can quit, and I would guess the majority never started.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Apr 17 2010, 06:43 PM, said:

You can read the most recent version of the IBPA Bulletin here:

Link to April 2010 IBPA Bulletin

It contains several letters to the editor in response to Marston's letter that appeared in the previous issue. One of these letters is by me, but the editor (reasonably I suppose) watered down the original (which gave the IMO disingenuous Marston the scathing that IMO he very much deserves).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Hey Fred,

Since even your "watered down" letter is throwing words like disingenuous, lets examine that following claim:

Quote

In fact, I do not recall meeting a single young bridge player who decided to stop playing our game because of systems restrictions.

I specifically stopped playing bridge in ACBL events due to system regulations.

10 Years back, I was playing a lot, and I was playing reasonable seriously.
I specifically stopped because of a combination of

1. System regulations here in the US
2. The unique "pleasure" of working with the conventions committee

I know a middling fair number of other folks who gave up on bridge. Frustration with the regulatory environment usually wasn't the only cause, but it certain contributes.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Apr 17 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

10 Years back, I was playing a lot, and I was playing reasonable seriously.
I specifically stopped because of a combination of

1.  System regulations here in the US
2.  The unique "pleasure" of working with the conventions committee

I know a middling fair number of other folks who gave up on bridge.  Frustration with the regulatory environment usually wasn't the only cause, but it certain contributes.

Hi Richard,

If you claim to agree with Marston's argument (not clear from your post that you do), either you are also being disingenuous or you are simply being stupid. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as far as your character is concerned, but I have to admit that it is hard for me to imagine that you are sufficiently stupid to buy the snake oil that Marston is trying to sell.

Hopefully it is the case that you do not agree with Marston's argument, but just in case it is necessary I will spell things out for you:

Let's accept as fact your claim to know a "middling number" of youngish people who have given up bridge due to system restrictions.

Now please consider the number of people you know who are approximately your age or younger who have NOT given up bridge. I am sure their number is considerably more than whatever you mean by "middling".

Please don't try to tell me that people "like you" make up as much as 5% of those who have not given up bridge.

What we OBVIOUSLY need is for a LOT of young players to try bridge - I am talking hundreds of thousands (ie the number of not-young bridge players in North America who are going to die in the next 20 years).

If young people don't try bridge then they can't give up bridge. If a middling % of those who try bridge eventually give up the game due to system regulations, that would be too bad, but 5% is not going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

The bottom line is this: if a lot of young people try bridge then the game will survive (and quite possibly thrive) regardless of what systems regulations are in place. If a lot of young people don't try bridge and, if the game survives at all, it will be but a shadow of what it is now.

I know the issue of systems regulations is near and dear to your heart and that you admire Marston's work as a bidding theorist, but please try to be objective about this.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Apr 17 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

If you claim to agree with Marston's argument (not clear from your post that you do), either you are also being disingenuous or you are simply being stupid. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as far as your character is concerned, but I have to admit that it is hard for me to imagine that you are sufficiently stupid to buy the snake oil that Marston is trying to sell.

I don't recall saying that I agreed with Paul's argument. Indeed, if you look back to where I originally posted the link to Paul's letter, I noted the existence of said letter. I didn't say "Hey, Paul's found the answer"...

From my perspective, the most interesting point on about this entire discuss is the contract between the letters by Larry Cohen and Kees Tammens on the IBPA web site.

Cohen argues that the biggest growth area for bridge is retirees and that retirees require a simple game. Cohen also notes that young players have a lot of other activities competing for their time / attention. (Its unclear to me whether Cohen would agree that exposing young people to bridge is sufficient to convert a significant percentage of them into bridge players)

Kees Tammens is the couch for the Dutch Youth Team. He writes the following "I couldn’t agree more with the editorial by Paul Marston. Impressive and positive ideas."

At the end of the day, I think that bridge organizations need to make a decision which demographic they're going to target.

I don't think that the face-to-face game can successfully target both constituencies.

[peachy]

I haven't read the whole article. What I see here is a tone of voice that I don't agree with.

[glen]

fred, on Apr 17 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

You can read the most recent version of the IBPA Bulletin here:

Link to April 2010 IBPA Bulletin

...

The choice of the IBPA bulletin editor to have on page 14 (the page just before the letters) the Multi story from the Vandy is interesting, especially since it was young against the establishment involving system restrictions, which in part were decided by one of the pair who suggest a procedural penalty.

[matmat]

glen, on Apr 17 2010, 01:38 PM, said:

fred, on Apr 17 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

You can read the most recent version of the IBPA Bulletin here:

Link to April 2010 IBPA Bulletin

...

The choice of the IBPA bulletin editor to have on page 14 (the page just before the letters) the Multi story from the Vandy is interesting, especially since it was young against the establishment involving system restrictions, which in part were decided by one of the pair who suggest a procedural penalty.

you mean the continuation of the editorial from the front page?

[glen]

matmat, on Apr 17 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

you mean the continuation of the editorial from the front page?

yes, with the Multi/vandy story part of the editorial on page 14

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Apr 17 2010, 01:36 PM, said:

I don't think that the face-to-face game can successfully target both constituencies.

Why not?

[helene_t]

Well the Multi story didn't have much to do with convention regulations. The theme of the editorial was sportmanship.

John Carruthers asks if we want bridge to be like golf or like other sports in which enforcement of the ethics code is purely the task of the referees. I suppose it is meant as a rhetoric question. The nature of bridge is similar to that of golf in that respect: referees can't oversee everything so we have to rely on the players' ethics.

hrothgar said:

I don't think that the face-to-face game can successfully target both constituencies.

The problem is that old people don't like teenagers and teenagers consider it uncool to play a game that is mainly for the 70+ segment. System regulations is not the issue.

If bridge was marketed as "an old-fashioned game governed by anachronistic rules designed to protect 90-year old players who refuse to adapt to the way the World works today" then OK, it would be even more difficult to attract young players. But system regulations is not a topic covered when the NBFs try to attract new players (of whatever age).