[StevenG]

pescetom, on 2026-August-16, 09:28, said:

I think you would be able to sit comfortably two groups of 28 people in that same room, with a dividing screen. A bridge table in line with others occupies a lot of space, 5 square metres is a minimum and uncomfortable too (the room width is also often not a multiple of table space width, as your club noted and partially overcame).

You wouldn't need to seat all those people, because nobody would turn up to play under those conditions.

[pescetom]

StevenG, on 2026-August-16, 09:32, said:

You wouldn't need to seat all those people, because nobody would turn up to play under those conditions.

That's what the old timers at the club told me in 2019, when f2f play was forbidden and I offered to organize tournaments on BBO instead.
50% tried to play the first tournament (after herculean efforts to teach them how to use internet in the first place) and many but not most of those overcame the "peculiarities" of signing up for and actually entering a BBO tournament.
Within a year it was 60% playing twice as many tournaments as before and having a great time, as well as learning how to bid without actually seeing each other ("we don't understand each other any more, can you help?" ).

I don't believe you any more than I believed them then.

[jillybean]

I fear we are getting off track.
I'm beginning to like this idea — a lounge-type setting: the Kiwis and Ozzies could hold the game in a local pub, or on the beach, while the Brits stick to their pubs (minus the beach, of course). Players could sit wherever they like, and with whomever they choose (N/E, S/W).
Something to revamp and make the game attractive is needed — it would certainly attract Juniors.

[pescetom]

The posh rowing circle here has a reading room off the bar: people will walk in with a coffee or beer and read the newspapers or a book or just stare into their phone or admire the lake. Nobody talks. It's a comfortable place to be. That's the kind of atmosphere I am thinking of.


As for juniors, where I am now they have done a phenomenal job of getting bridge into the schools and we encounter several teenage pairs at the evening tournaments. They play cheerfully face to face at tables but their eyes only really light up when they get the hand analysis on their phone. If you offered them to bid and play on the phone instead of with paper cards I bet they would be enthusiastic. And if you gave them the chance to sit near someone their own age they would jump at it

[jillybean]

Do it.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-August-17, 09:15, said:

Do it.

I'm not in the right place: too small a club, too old the players and too many on the wrong side, the president not behind me and not much chance of changing any of that.
Give me the club of my pickup partner - large, thriving, loaded with expert players and in a historic building in the centre of a University city - and I think I could make it fly.
Maybe he could do it with my help, if his President is on the same wavelength. I will discuss over a beer.

[jillybean]

Arrange a casual electronic game for the teenagers who play in the tournaments and anyone else who wants to join in. It doesnt need to be anything official. see if it grows.

[pescetom]

pescetom, on 2026-August-11, 09:10, said:

The most wretched aspect as mentioned is that such situations invariably cause distress to the victim, whatever he does, particularly if he is inexperienced or timid. Thinking about it, the 1♦-(1♠)-2♦-2♠;3♣ disaster which cost us first place on Saturday was an unforced error by partner almost certainly induced by stress from the previous board, where (ironically) we scored a national top, but had an unpleasant run in with opponents.

On previous board both vulnerable I opened in second a weak 2♦ with 9 AQ9 Q98652 875, not everyone's cup of tea. We then bid to 5♦ over 4♠, a contract which to my surprise remained undoubled after two pregnant pauses. Partner laid down a delightful dummy of 542 T532 AK4 AK9 and once it became clear that LHO had started 6=1=2=4 it was easy to pick up the hearts leaving only a club still to lose. At this point in a normal situation I would have claimed, but the opponents were clearly of the level and mentality that would refuse a claim and say "play on"... which leads to an awkward Director call (surprisingly often Directors do not understand the related Law) at best. So I decided to play it out and I lost only the last trick. RHO beamed and said "One down", asserting they had won the last two tricks plus the spades lead. I explained patiently the last few tricks, but the opps started frantically turning up cards and getting their discards in a mess. I told them to stop and called the Director. Who luckily was calm and competent but we still had to reconstruct all thirteen tricks before the correct score was registered. Obviously partner and I both took a fair dose of adrenaline and frustration and predictably screwed up on the next round, losing enough partnership confidence to blow the tournament. There's just no easy solution to this, except perhaps to have a very thick skin and limited social ambitions.

History repeated itself (as tragedy) yesterday, with an eerily similar situation at another club.

We bid to 2♠ and RHO rather surprisingly given my spades took the push to 2NT, which ended the auction. Not unexpectedly we took 4 spades and 3 more tricks. "2 down", we said, but Declarer claimed he had won 7 tricks. Everyone had their discards in order and it was easy to spot the trick he had misplaced. I pointed this out, but he was having none of it, in the meantime his partner huffily sorted his cards and put them into the board. I called Director to the table and explained the situation, he tried to convince us to accept 2NT-1. I reminded him that it was his duty to determine the actual number of tricks if possible to do so and that three of us still had our discards in order on the table. The penny dropped. he reconstructed all thirteen tricks and ordered us to register 2NT-2. LHO turned to me and haughtily claimed "we came here to have fun, not for this": I bit my tongue.

Partner was understandably unnerved and made an unforced error on next board (failing to balance with 12 HCP and a stop) which cost us the tournament. He is the victim here, not the player who came to have fun.

[mycroft]

If you're here to have fun, a quick check of the cards should be part of it. Definitely "mixing your cards to make a clean resolution harder" is not "here to have fun", it's "here to help our version of the facts stands". It works, too, at least in this club, as the director's immediate response showed.

And it also wins when "having fun guy" rattles their opponents in the discussion. (Frankly, I'm blaming your partner for that one - don't care (within reason and 74A2) what happens on previous board, once it's done, it's *done*. This, too, is a bridge skill, and one you can - and should - get better at. But your partner isn't the only one it works on.)

My strong opinion of this kind of behaviour is "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action"(*). And that was once - maybe the card shuffling was twice, but if not, it definitely moves the entire action into "once". That pair doing "here to have fun" antics again get reported to the recorder. If the TD isn't the club owner, or there is club management, report there too. This is the kind of thing that grows like bindweed in "oh, we don't call the director, we're here to have fun" clubs (**), and the right kind of players play "the game at the table" as well as they play the "game at the table" at a tournament - and if they don't/can't, it's "why we don't play tournaments".

(*) Cute - looked up the quote, and it's from the Bridge Bond Book :-).
(**) I don't actually mind the "unless it's really egregious, don't call on UI"/"just work out equity on revokes"/"always allow (expect) IBs to be replaced by the next level up" kind of clubs. I don't want to play in them, but I can live with it (and I balance when I just can't stand it with "don't care if *you* didn't notice, we did [thing] and we're calling the director to protect you just as much as we'd call the director to protect *us* if you did it"). But it does allow these sorts of games as well, and I *do* mind those. Note, I call on this all the way to NABC+ events - viz my gripes about pros playing with their played cards, for instance. It's just amazing how much "the way we do it is better, there's so much less [whatever]" exists everywhere, and how much of that misses what happens there instead.