[Free]

In the past I've played all sorts of systems: from stone age acol to 5 card Majors, some sort of precision, MOSCITO, forcing pass, and now back to some natural system with some conventions (openings are pretty standard, continuations are not). This evolution because I wanted to experiment, had a lot of fun, but eventually I just got tired of the prealterting, explaining every call,... Also, competitive auctions were not always as easy to handle.

I've played in a club which said we could play every method we wanted. They were actually proud about this! Normally WBF color codes are used to determine which systems are allowed (which I think is a very good method). In fact, all systems were allowed but nobody played a strong pass for example. One night me and my partner had decided to play a random 2♣ opening, a BSC which shows 0-5HCP with any possible distribution. It came up 4 times! Every opponent complained about this, we got questions to what method it was exactly (so they could determine what to do with it), but they couldn't forbid us to play this that evening. A few weeks later there were system restrictions that BSC's and HUM's were no longer allowed.

In my opinion banning methods is definitely a matter of self preservation. Moreover it's easy because a new method comes from 1 person/pair, while opinions about it come from thousands of people. Convincing someone that a convention should be forbidden, for whatever reason, is simple. Call it "destructive" and people get scared. "People will leave the club". Etc. And if that doesn't help, just say it's "impossible to defend against" (example transfer openings)...

I can understand Adam's view on systems. There is a good solution: WBF color codes. Red systems basically allow you to play pretty much everything, with a few exceptions. Not specific exceptions (like "pass promisses 12HCP or more is not allowed"), but general rules to describe which category your method belongs to. The rules are transparent and clear, so there's no room for discussion. If you develop a new method, you can determine the color code yourself and it can be played if the color is allowed. There are no people who can disallow a certain method because they think it's too hard to defend against. There's no need to approve it. Over here in Belgium, every tournament allows Green, Blue and Red systems. People accept this, because BSC's can be very difficult to defend against, and HUM's usually contain some destructive methods.

Personally I don't think system regulations are the cause of young people staying away from the game, but it could be a reason they quit the game after some years. When you first learn the game, you're not interested in playing crazy methods, because you haven't accuired the normal skills yet. However, when you're getting better and play more hands, you get in touch with all sorts of methods, so you want to experiment yourself. Also you get more problem hands. If you find a perfect solution but you're not allowed to play it, it's probably very frustrating.

Beginners should be protected for this and play among themselves for a while (so they can learn the basics), but after a while they should be left alone to experiment imo.

We have another thread comparing declarer play from for example the blue team with current top players. I think pretty much everyone can agree that declarer play may have improved slightly (although not much) or has stayed the same, but the blue team would be slaughtered because of better bidding systems. On the other hand, some authorizations seem to want to stop all new developments in bidding systems.

[pooltuna]

hotShot, on Apr 19 2010, 07:07 AM, said:

There are 2 issues to discuss:

1) Why are "young" people not interested in learning bridge? How do we get their interest?

2) Does system regulation drive (young) player away from bridge.


ad 1) Bridge has a bad image (at least around here). Most people (here) only read about Bridge in some Agatha Christie novel. Their impression is that is a boring game for old people to waste time.

Chess has done better advertising, being a chess player has a positive image.

ad 2) Of cause people like to experiment with the bidding system.
If they can't practice their ideas, they could get frustrated.

Offering a regular "all systems allowed" session, could help a lot.

But don't we all put to much weight to the bidding system? It's much easier to change your bidding system, than to learn to play/defend well.
Many player know lots of conventions, have an elaborated bidding systems, but lack good judgment, decent declarer play and defense.

Young people are generally not exposed to bridge. After all we play in clubs where passerbys can never see any action even from a distance. Imagine the difference if you were playing a duplicate game in the open area of your local enclosed mall!

The second problem is we are not trying hard enough to get into the school system. We probably need to do this in conjuction with the other game groups such as Hearts, Go, Chess, Scrabble, et al. If we are a united front we can be more like the high school football league (American and other) where the schools can complete for local & state level championships. You probably would have to settle for an overall games champion rather than a specific game but where each game would contribute to the overall standing.

[rbforster]

Free, on Apr 19 2010, 07:22 AM, said:

I think pretty much everyone can agree that declarer play may have improved slightly (although not much) or has stayed the same, but the blue team would be slaughtered because of better bidding systems.  On the other hand, some authorizations seem to want to stop all new developments in bidding systems.

Slightly off-topic from Marston, but I think this is a very good point and clearly illustrates the conflicts of interest of those making the rules. I'm not saying they aren't also "trying to do the best for the game", but it's clear they also benefit the most from enforcing the status quo. It's so hard to become a world class declarer and once you're in the top ranks, you'd rather force everyone to play the same system so your advantage is the only one that matters.

[jjbrr]

Ya, anyone who thinks system restrictions are the cause of any meaningful number of young people quitting bridge is completely out of touch with reality. If young people get good enough at the game to have some fundamental understanding of system construction such that the regulations come into play, it seems clear to me that we would consider this a victory in getting young people to play bridge, because, you know, they have to know how to play bridge before they can start going crazy with systems.

I share the opinion that bridge in schools, particularly middle school (grades 5-8) and in universities, is the way to get people interested if getting young people interested is possible. Young people have to be introduced to the game before other interests get in the way, and even then it's been my experience that it requires a certain kind of person to stick with the game.

Kids these days like results now. They play video games where they shoot villains from the beginning of the game all the way to the end, and each kill is a little victory. Their video game character is always in the action. Sports are the same thing. If you break bridge down in terms of little victories, there are no quick thrills. At the smallest level, you might win a hand every 7 minutes or so, but that's not really enough to keep kids interested, especially considering that making a contract (ie "winning") could still be a hugely losing position.

I would argue that comparing bridge clubs in schools to chess clubs in schools is not necessarily best. The nice thing about chess is that you can learn the game in 2 minutes, the learning curve at the beginning is very steep, and there are competitions for young people at the local and state levels not infrequently. I learned at the beginning of 5th grade when a friend taught me during lunch break. 2 weeks later I could already beat him, and only a couple months later I was competing in local tournaments, winning trophies, and qualifying for state championships where I won another trophy. While I won't deny that I probably have a better mind for games than most of my peers, the fact that one can learn the game so quickly and be a top-ten competitor at the state level without much effort at all is great for a young person who craves immediate results. But there is a problem with this. How many of those kids who played chess in their middle school chess clubs still play the game competitively 5 years later? 10 years? 50 years? I don't have the slightest clue, because I didn't go to any more competitions once I reached high school (though bridge did get in the way, I still wouldn't have played chess).

Additionally, chess has the advantage that the game is easy to learn and to teach, so any average chess player can organize a chess club and teach the kids everything they need to know on their own: stacked pawns aren't great, control the middle of the board, knights are more powerful when they're not on the perimeter, keep your king in front of the pawn you're trying to advance in the endgame. Other than that, the game is an open book and the kids can learn the rest on their own. Bridge teachers require a lot more knowledge and ability to communicate bridge to an audience, especially an audience of 12 year olds.

Bridge in its current form is not a whole lot of fun for a young person just starting out. In fact it can be quite frustrating. It's slow and there's a lot to learn and the results are sort of meaningless and don't even give you much sense of accomplishment. Why would any average kid stick with it? Give them lots of reasons to stick with it, whether it be summer bridge camps or lots of local tournaments (speedballs, perhaps?), and they will be more likely to keep it up.

Cliffs:
-system restrictions have very little to do with young players at all
-bridge is boring and burdensome to learn
-if you make it interesting, kids will be interested in it, maybe

[nige1]

Free, on Apr 19 2010, 07:22 AM, said:

I think pretty much everyone can agree that declarer play may have improved slightly (although not much) or has stayed the same, but the blue team would be slaughtered because of better bidding systems.  On the other hand, some authorizations seem to want to stop all new developments in bidding systems.

Rob F, on Apr 19 2010, 09:45 AM, said:

Slightly off-topic from Marston, but I think this is a very good point and clearly illustrates the conflicts of interest of those making the rules.  I'm not saying they aren't also "trying to do the best for the game", but it's clear they also benefit the most from enforcing the status quo.  It's so hard to become a world class declarer and once you're in the top ranks, you'd rather force everyone to play the same system so your advantage is the only one that matters.

Most Bridge players believe their preferred weapons are natural and constructive but opponents just want to use new kinds of poison gas.

We started off just bidding our longest suits at an appropriate level. Notrump bids promised at least the semblance of stops. Later we learnt to accept an artificial strong two club opener. When we encountered Standard American minor suit openings, they seemed completely artificial. The British Nottinham Club was almost identical to the later Precision. Hence, the objection to Italian club, French relay, or Polish strong pass systems was hard to understand.

It is amusing when, even now, their protagonists defend fit jumps or splinters as "natural". But, presumably, to them, their methods are completely natural. Widespread adoption means that players must believe such methods to be effective, as well as to be fun to play.

Now, resistance to change is increasing. It seems a pity that the establishment stifle innovation with rules of ever increasing complexity.

[akhare]

Rob F, on Apr 19 2010, 09:45 AM, said:

Slightly off-topic from Marston, but I think this is a very good point and clearly illustrates the conflicts of interest of those making the rules.  I'm not saying they aren't also "trying to do the best for the game", but it's clear they also benefit the most from enforcing the status quo.  It's so hard to become a world class declarer and once you're in the top ranks, you'd rather force everyone to play the same system so your advantage is the only one that matters.

Yes indeed - good luck getting the C&C "volunteers" to adopt something like what awm suggested (and I am sure we will get a lot of apologists explaining why things ain't broken):

http://forums.bridge...pic=38668&st=0#

[billw55]

jjbrr, on Apr 19 2010, 10:00 AM, said:

Bridge in its current form is not a whole lot of fun for a young person just starting out. In fact it can be quite frustrating. It's slow and there's a lot to learn and the results are sort of meaningless and don't even give you much sense of accomplishment. Why would any average kid stick with it? Give them lots of reasons to stick with it, whether it be summer bridge camps or lots of local tournaments (speedballs, perhaps?), and they will be more likely to keep it up.

Cliffs:
-system restrictions have very little to do with young players at all
-bridge is boring and burdensome to learn
-if you make it interesting, kids will be interested in it, maybe

I am certainly no expert on how to best teach bridge to kids. But I can certainly agree that one problem is how highly complex the rules are. The score tables alone get blank stares from some adults.

I think your comparison to chess shows just how compicated it is. True chess is much simpler - but even chess is not so simple, with six pieces that each move differently, promotion, stalemate, and special case rules like castling, en passant, etc. This is not at all simple for many, perhaps most kids. (I find your statement that it can be learned in 2 minutes frankly preposterous.) That all this feels trivially simple compared to bridge really shows how incomprehensible even following the rules of bridge can be to youngsters, let alone trying to learn play well.

[Rossoneri]

In the past 5 years, there has been a significant increase of students playing bridge in Singapore, to the extent where some local club nights have student players accounting for more than two-thirds or even three-quarters of the players.

This is mainly due to an increase in introducing bridge to junior colleges (equivalent to Sixth Form in the UK, Grade 11-12 in the US(?)), mostly as a direct consquence of our local NBO introducing coaching into schools. This is starting to have a knock-on effect onto universities as many of these students continue playing bridge even after their 2 years in school. There is a significant drop-out rate of course (more on that), but there is still a sizeable population even after this.

I agree that the main thing going against bridge is the complexity of the rules and play, which is why I think coaching helps a lot as having someone to explain makes it more approachable. Once the players have reached a point where they are competent enough and are already hooked onto the game, most of the hard work is over IMO.

[Mbodell]

The other chess to bridge comparison is you only need 2 people to play chess and you can run a chess tournament with 4 people pretty easily. With bridge you need 4 people just to play at all, and for duplicate you need at least 8. That is a big difference in organization for young people.

I used to play in high school with my friends in class (when we were already finished the work and far enough ahead in the material that the teachers would leave us alone) and most often we played hearts because there were only 3 of us, but when there were 4 we played bridge.

[jdonn]

I agree with Fred's point that, whatever you think of system regulation, it's truly ridiculous to claim that issue is the main cause of young people quiting bridge. Ridiculous may not even be a strong enough word.

[junyi_zhu]

VMars, on Apr 17 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

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.

Agree. IMO, the biggest problem in USA for this game to attract more people is the game format. Basically, you pay entry fee, a lot of entry fee, to ACBL for nothing. Suppose you win some matches, in Poker, you may money, in chess your rate goes up to show your progress, in bridge, you make some master points, which reflect your attendance to this organization and don't reflect your skill level much. Few young people would really go into such kind of nonsense IMO. In Poker, some very young talents can make big money purely from their skill and luck. In Bridge, there is just no way. Even chess has a better format. They actually have a much better rating system which may attract young and talented players. This situation lies in the nature of this game, a partnership game. So it was designed to reward attendance and not to take it too seriously, otherwise, cheating would flow everywhere in this game. Still, IMO, a much better rating system can be devised based on pairs, not individuals. Since it's a partnership game, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say xxx is the best player. Instead, the proper way is xxx and yyy are the best partnership.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Apr 18 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

I have often argued that there should be two tier events. Anything goes and restricted. You could even have restricted world championships if you wanted to, so sponsors would not have to worry about odious impossible to defend bids like the multi. Why not?

I'm not sure I would (or wouldn't) want to split up into seperate world championships, but in the current climate of system regulation I think it's a very good idea to hold a few 'anything goes' events. I might even play in such an event, even though I believe in some level of restriction.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 18 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

I have often argued that there should be two tier events. Anything goes and restricted. You could even have restricted world championships if you wanted to, so sponsors would not have to worry about odious impossible to defend bids like the multi. Why not?

I'm not sure I would (or wouldn't) want to split up into seperate world championships, but in the current climate of system regulation I think it's a very good idea to hold a few 'anything goes' events. I might even play in such an event, even though I believe in some level of restriction.

Why not? Surely this would make everyone happy.

[dake50]

As I see it, there is great conflict between the COMPETITORS and the SOLVERS.
COMP wants the contest to be the endall: won regional proves my value.
SOLV wants the problems solved: when is right singleton, helping honor, similar.

I'm in the SOLVERS camp. Always and truly.

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Apr 20 2010, 02:16 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 18 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

I have often argued that there should be two tier events. Anything goes and restricted. You could even have restricted world championships if you wanted to, so sponsors would not have to worry about odious impossible to defend bids like the multi. Why not?

I'm not sure I would (or wouldn't) want to split up into seperate world championships, but in the current climate of system regulation I think it's a very good idea to hold a few 'anything goes' events. I might even play in such an event, even though I believe in some level of restriction.

Why not? Surely this would make everyone happy.

It will make TDs unhappy (have to enforce different regulations in different events, and deal with players who bring their Tuesday-evening convention card on Wednesday evening).

It will make most of those few players who are aware of the regulations unhappy as they can't play multi themselves (since they want to play the same system throughout) but at the same time they have to prepare a defense against multi (in case some opps do bother to play multiple systems, or only play at the liberal-regulations evenings).

It will make club board members unhappy (as they have to waste time on silly discussions about which chart to chose for which events).

OK, there will be a tiny few players who have strong preferences for a particular charter and will be happy to restrict their attendance to events with that charter.

[straube]

It seems like people used to learn games like Whist and Bridge so that they could mingle socially. Couples would invite couples over for dinner and Bridge. I remember my folks doing that a lot. Before women started entering the work force, they got together for Bridge once a month or whatever.

There were fewer activities and more people that engaged in them.

I think people just don't entertain like they used to. We're more likely to stay at home and watch a DVD or play a video game. We don't invite the next door neighbors over any more. We probably have less in common with them than we might have had in years past. We're splintering.

The loss of this large reservoir of players has really hurt bridge. Maybe a lot of them didn't play Stayman or takeout doubles, but a few of them bought books or took lessons and a few of them found their way into clubs and tournaments.

I just don't see that reservoir of casual players ever coming back.

At the same time, Bridge keeps evolving and methods are improving and the play disparity between the kitchen Bridge players and the club players continues to widen. I can't get my folks to take lessons at the local club because 1) they're not competitive and think that the nature of competition is inherently unfriendly and 2) they don't want to learn fancy conventions that their friends won't know or understand.

I understand the desire to recruit recent retirees into the game. They (the baby boomers) have time and possibly money and were probably exposed to (likely played) Bridge at some point in their lives. I see two drawbacks. One is that this pool of players (the baby boomers) will come to an end. Two is that if you spend most of your life not playing bridge and try to catch up after retiring, you're not likely to become a very good player.

Where I live, our day games are better attended than our evening games and the novice games are becoming more common than our open games. Our novice games are often filled with retired people. Whatever open game I play, I feel like the field is much weaker than it was even ten years ago.

So I hope that we can target colleges etc and recruit some young players...not only for bodies but to develop future advanced and expert players.

[awm]

I do think targeting colleges is a good idea.

Of the young players I can think of who play at least some tournament bridge (aside from things specifically targeted towards youth players), most of them either picked up the game from parents who are serious duplicate players, or got into the game in college.

Perhaps this is changing now through the "bridge in schools" programs and youth NABC? I'm curious as to how such programs have fared in other countries which have run them for longer than the USA (if such exist).

It may be worth mentioning that a lot of "baby boomers" actually didn't learn to play bridge as kids. Even though almost all their parents played at least a little social bridge, they didn't seem to teach their kids. My parents (coming up on retirement age now) and the vast majority of their friends have never really played bridge. This is going to make it a lot harder to attract retiring "baby boomers" to the game than it was to attract their parents at retirement age, and I think was one of the points made in VMars's post.

[blackshoe]

awm, on Apr 20 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

It may be worth mentioning that a lot of "baby boomers" actually didn't learn to play bridge as kids. Even though almost all their parents played at least a little social bridge, they didn't seem to teach their kids.

I honestly don't remember whether I learned bridge as a child, or in college. My parents did play it, and I played a lot in college, but I don't remember when I learned it. I do remember reading Five Weeks to Winning Bridge somewhere back there. I'm 63, btw.

[the hog]

helene_t, on Apr 20 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 20 2010, 02:16 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 18 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

I have often argued that there should be two tier events. Anything goes and restricted. You could even have restricted world championships if you wanted to, so sponsors would not have to worry about odious impossible to defend bids like the multi. Why not?

I'm not sure I would (or wouldn't) want to split up into seperate world championships, but in the current climate of system regulation I think it's a very good idea to hold a few 'anything goes' events. I might even play in such an event, even though I believe in some level of restriction.

Why not? Surely this would make everyone happy.

It will make TDs unhappy (have to enforce different regulations in different events, and deal with players who bring their Tuesday-evening convention card on Wednesday evening).

It will make most of those few players who are aware of the regulations unhappy as they can't play multi themselves (since they want to play the same system throughout) but at the same time they have to prepare a defense against multi (in case some opps do bother to play multiple systems, or only play at the liberal-regulations evenings).

It will make club board members unhappy (as they have to waste time on silly discussions about which chart to chose for which events).

OK, there will be a tiny few players who have strong preferences for a particular charter and will be happy to restrict their attendance to events with that charter.

I don't understand your post at all Helene, sorry. Who said anything about different charts, and why would club members be unhappy or even have to be involved in silly discussions? Why would you have to bring 2 different convention cards. I think you misunderstood my proposal -

1 Take an event, say the Vanderbilt as an example:

You would have 2 levels 1) system restricted, 2) anything goes
You enter the level you want. If you win 1) you are "System restricted Vanderbilt champion,"; if you play in and win the other you are "Anything goes Vanderbilt champion." Same masterpoints and accolades for each.

You could extend this concept to World championships. You would have to make sure that you didn't call the restricted event some demeaning name and the anything goes group something like "The real Bermuda Bowl". This way players in the former group could still have their egos intact.
Where is the confusion? All are happy

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Apr 20 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

All are happy

I hope you don't really believe that would be the case.